undefined | Better HN

0 pointsdigitaltrees23d ago0 comments

Why would current AI be an argument for panpsycism? I don’t understand the connection.

AI is stochastic, not static and deterministic.

As I said, in another post, there is evidence that sensory experience creates the emergent property of awareness in responding to stimulus, self-awareness and consciousness is an emergent property of a language that has a concept of the self and others. Rocks, just like most of nature, like both sensory and language systems

0 comments

applfanboysbgon23d ago

> AI is stochastic, not static and deterministic.

LLMs are deterministic. If you provide the same input to the same GPU, it will produce the same output every time. LLM providers arbitrarily insert a randomised seed into the inference stack so that the input is different every time because that is more useful (and/or because it gives the illusion of dynamic intelligence by not reproducing the same responses verbatim), but it is not an inherent property of the software.

digitaltreesOP23d ago

The same argument is made about the human neural network

applfanboysbgon23d ago

1. That is not the claim you originally made.

2. Not provably so.

3. Even if it were so, it is self-evident that the human brain's programming is infinitely more complex than that of an LLM's. I am not, in principle, in opposition to the idea that a sufficiently advanced computer program would be indistinguishable from that of human consciousness. But it is evidence of psychosis to suggest that the trivially simple programs we've created today are even remotely close, when this field of software specifically skips anything that programming a real intelligence would look like and instead engages in superficial, statistic-based mimicry of intelligent output.

2 more replies

colechristensen23d ago

I think it's the opposite argument

IF current AI is conscious, so are trees, rocks, turbulent flows, etc.

The argument being that LLMs are so simple that if you want to ascribe consciousness to them you have to do the same to a LOT of other stuff.

digitaltreesOP23d ago

But I listed a specific difference: sensation and response. Trees have that. Rocks do not.

Izkata23d ago

I believe you're using the scientific definition of "sentience", while everyone else is using the common understanding of of the word (which should be called "sapience", but thanks to sci-fi's usage of the word "sentience" is largely not).

1 more reply

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse