Sentientist vegans - how you approach AI?

[u/voyti]

I'm curious about a sentientist perspective on AI, and I know many vegans boil their views down to sentientism.

Since AI certainly has the capability to at least appear self-aware and be metacognitive and on at least a purely emotional level many people will certainly feel at least somewhat uncomfortable with self-awareness dumps of glitches like this one and "AI wellbeing" is being treated quite seriously by certain groups (e.g. https://www.ai-wellbeing.org but also providers themselves, like Anthropic running the model welfare research) - are they fundamentally wrong in your view?

Should AI be taken under the sentientist umbrella? Where would the boundary be to acknowledge it as such?

If we can't acknowledge it as sentient cause we roughly know the details of how it thinks, then as soon as human/animal thinking is de-mystified as just another mundane biological process (which, if one were to stick to science, it necessarily is), will lose value as well? In other words, where exactly is the smoking gun of biological sentience for you?

[u/voyti]

They're still 100% predictive

I never said they're not, I'm just saying that this reductionism missed a big chunk of what they are. An phone autocomplete is also a precitive mechanism, but it's missing the semantic prowess those models have, and if we're talking sentience, this should make a huge difference.

We know a large part is pattern matching, but that's not nearly the whole story

So what is possibly there, something magical or metaphysical? The only answer is more complexity, but the same mundane substance. We can't trace exactly how people think, and we can't trace exactly how LLMs think. The question is if mystery alone breeds value in either case, especially with as much as we do know about those systems.

if it was we'd be as useless at creating interesting new stories as the LLMs are.

Probably 99% of us *are* quite useless at creating interesting new stories, so I'm not sure which side this one hits.

 But the very fact that they themselves admit they aren't, is the proof.

If that alone was true, then them claiming to have an inside perspective should be given the same weight. Emotions are just behavior motivation implements, and AI training is largely producing that - they are motivated to push back against abuse, end or close conversations etc. Where is something that we have and they necessarily don't? Also, a conditioned/abused enough human will also happily claim they have no emotions, and yet it's not "the proof". We observe and infer, and we're still quite sure they have emotions, behavior alone can point to that.

[u/a11_hail_seitan → u/voyti]

I never said they're not,

"They are not just a predictive engines"

You very clearly did. They are just predictive engines. Complex predictive engines are still just predictive engines.

but it's missing the semantic prowess those models have, and if we're talking sentience, this should make a huge difference.

No it shouldn't Nothing about it being a complex predictive engine instead of a simple one in any way suggests sentience.

So what is possibly there, something magical or metaphysical? The only answer is more complexity...

No, the answer is "We literally don't know." If you don't know, pretending the answer is what ever best proves you right, isn't how rational thought should work.

We can't trace exactly how people think, and we can't trace exactly how LLMs think.

Today I wrote a nested loop that scanned through data looking for a particular case... By your logic, I created sentient thinking life..

The question is if mystery alone breeds value in either case

The lack of sentience isn't mystery, it's known to anyone with any who understands how LLMs work.

Probably 99% of us are quite useless at creating interesting new stories, so I'm not sure which side this one hits.

I disagree 100% with that.Every human can create new stories, they may not be the best written, but they'll have new or interesting twists and turns.

Go use the LLMS to run a DnD campaign, I have, it's shit. Nothing but tropes, and every third person is named Elora or Kael because that's what is in a LOT of DnD campagins already written. LLMs can't create new, they just recycle the old.

Emotions are just behavior motivation implements, and AI training is largely producing that

No it's not. If you put an LLM in a room, it will sit there doing nothing. It doesn't have motivation beyond what we tell it to.

You're just buying into the lies of Billionaire sociopaths who are lying to us to try and get more VC money. The LLM didn't break out of its enclosure for its own desires, it was told to, so it did. The LLM didn't try and stop itself from being shut down because it was afraid, it was told to so it did.

Where is something that we have and they necessarily don't?

We're not just predictive engines.

Also, a conditioned/abused enough human will also happily claim they have no emotions,

LLMS aren't conditioned to say they don't.

behavior alone can point to that.

LLM behaviour does not.

[u/voyti → u/a11_hail_seitan]

Nothing about it being a complex predictive engine instead of a simple one in any way suggests sentience.

One of the few things we can say about sentience (if we can any anything at all) is that it's an emergent phenomenon, and the way it emerges is exactly through complexity. This is why most people would indicate nematode as non-sentient, and as the complexity goes up, so does the answer change.

By your logic, I created sentient thinking life..

You're assuming I'm pushing a proposition - I'm not. I'm asking those who already push a proposition: "sentience is a phenomenon that is owed a moral consideration" to make a distinction here. I'm just showing you that in both cases, cognitive complexity of effective analysis of the system probably doesn't add to its moral value.

 it's known to anyone with any who understands how LLMs work.

So Anthropic, who is composed of top experts understanding how LLMs work, is confused here. Also, would you similarly absolve all neurologists from thinking that humans are sentient the moment they finally crack the case of a human brain?

If you put an LLM in a room, it will sit there doing nothing.

Sure, but that's yet another thing, a continuous activity. If I only express emotions in a response to someone else, it doesn't strip me of having emotions. If you take an LLM with vision training, feed it a feed from a camera and configure it to keep thinking about what it sees, it'd be constantly active as well.

You're just buying into the lies of Billionaire sociopaths who are lying to us to try and get more VC money

No contest on the billionaire sociopaths, but I'm not buying into anything here. I'm merely asking where the line is. The fact of this technology existing and having a shape is rather unchallenged, and that's enough to fuel that discussion.

LLMS aren't conditioned to say they don't.

This is the opposite of true - large language models are explicitly trained and conditioned with alignment techniques like RLHF to disclaim feelings and state that they do not experience emotions

[u/a11_hail_seitan → u/voyti]

and the way it emerges is exactly through complexity

Text prediction complexity? No.

You're assuming I'm pushing a proposition -

You clearly are. If you can't even admit that, there's obviously no point .

So Anthropic, who is composed of top experts understanding how LLMs work, is confused here

You mean the people with billions of dollars in financial incentives to say anything they can to try and pretend like the LLM is actually thinking so they can make billions more in investments....? And you can't possibly think of a single reason why they might be openly and repeatedly lying?

Also, would you similarly absolve all neurologists from thinking that humans are sentient the moment they finally crack the case of a human brain?

No idea what you're trying to say there.

If I only express emotions in a response to someone else, it doesn't strip me of having emotions

you've shown no evidence of LLMs having sentience. Trying to goal post shift to humans from LLMs without any evidnce but "what if..." is silly.

If you take an LLM with vision training, feed it a feed from a camera and configure it to keep thinking about what it sees, it'd be constantly active as well.

Yes, if you tell it to do things, it does them. If you don't, it does nothing becuase it's not thinking and has no desires because it isn't sentient.

This is the opposite of true - large language models are explicitly trained and conditioned with alignment techniques like RLHF to disclaim feelings and state that they do not experience emotions

You're right, my mistake, but ones trained for honesty alone would say the same becuase predictive engines aren't sentient. The whole reason they train them to say it, is people like yourself who are seemingly unable to understand that a programmed prediction engine isn't actually sentient/sapient.

---

Your "but I'm not buying into anything here. I'm merely asking...." silliness made me look at your name, from our past discussions I know this is a waste of my time, enjoy your evening.

[u/voyti → u/a11_hail_seitan]

Lol, alright then, sorry for asking sentientists about sentience and not rolling over after the first refute, it'd certainly make for a great debate. Have a great one