Chat bots will likely plateau really soon. They are trained on internet content, which is more and more commonly being generated with the help of chat bots.
Before long it will be difficult to tell what is written by humans, and they will begin training on their own output from the previous generation.
I expect there will be training issues long before processing power issues.
I see way more potential than you apparently. But maybe not as a "chat bot" but rather as a general assistant that provides helpful services when a threshold of helpfulness is detected.
If Iām understanding you correctly, then Apple is rolling something like that out this fall. I donāt see this as being in conflict with my opinion though. Existing tech can be refined and built to do exactly this, but the individual models will be much more limited in capability.
āGeneralizedā models was more what I was referring to, which I believe weāre already seeing plateau. I am deeply skeptical of claims we will achieve AGI as well. We are more than statistical models mixed with random number generators, which is all these bots are when reduced to their simplest concepts.
If it turns out thatās how consciousness and intelligence work, Iāll commit seppuku - thatās a meaningless life.
Why would the inner working of consciousness have any relevance to the meaning of life? Emergent properties can be far more complex than the primitives of the system.
Because it means free will does not exist. Absent free will, I see no value in life. If our lives are either a craps shoot, or predetermined, neither one leaves any room for agency, for evil, or for heroism.
We did it because our number was up.
Iām not mentally at my best, apologies if Iām not making sense.
That line of argument is not uncommon but I disagree. Meaning of life is what we ascribe to it. And if we pick a meaning of life that is at odds with consciousness emerging from rather simple building blocks, we might not have picked well.
I find Darwinism as a general purpose of all living beings quite convincing. We live to adapt to whatever the universe throws at us and if the universe threw the end of the universe at us, maybe that thriving high tech civilizations decided to have lives in the matrix. Maybe we get unplugged at some point to appreciate the approaching black hole and we jump back in to play another life. Maybe you've plaid 100 lives before and decided to play with a mental challenge this time. And maybe the world is a rats maze that we have to find the way out? Once you figure out the purpose of the current simulation, you win and get to play the next level.
I find your position to be intellectually compelling, and I expected nothing less from you based on the few interactions weāve had.
We find purpose and meaning from very different places, I will acknowledge that. š¤£ But I love it. So much diversity of thought. If I am remembering correctly, Dawkins has a similar line of reasoning re:purpose and meaning, and Dawkins is another intellectual that I disagree with and deeply enjoy reading.
I do believe if there is a definite truth somewhere between our positions, that AI research will be a great testing grounds for finding it! I believe I posted a few months ago that I believed the question of the century would be determinism - and I had AI in mind when I posted it.
If AI truly produces something that is convincingly sentient - conscious - then it would certainly support your stance, and I would have to reconsider mine fundamentally. Unfortunately for my side, I donāt think a failure for AI to do so will be as strong of an evidence for my stance.
I do find it fascinating how we as humans can feel so differently about determinism, which is what I feel this conversation really boils down to in some way.
nostr:nprofile1qqsydl97xpj74udw0qg5vkfyujyjxd3l706jd0t0w0turp93d0vvungppemhxue69uhkummn9ekx7mp0qy08wumn8ghj7mn0wd68yttsw43zuam9d3kx7unyv4ezumn9wshsz8thwden5te0dehhxarj9ekh2arfdeuhwctvd3jhgtnrdakj70vc385 nostr:nprofile1qqs2spz4wvk4h7ne9uneqydgepcc2vvzjuvegaftnnc3d9s3l7g627qpz4mhxue69uhk2er9dchxummnw3ezumrpdejqz9mhwden5te0ve5kcar9wghxummnw3ezuamfdejszsmhwvaz7tejwp3xkurwv3m8qet9vfkx5enkdfjhwdnpw4cnvvmvdej85um6w9hxuarrws6kzutxd4sh5umvv4e857r9xu6kkcty9ehku6t0dc74r52h nostr:nprofile1qqs897t425q7rfzxfae80krpyrm8ulm7cw5yaa5p8nrkq6l4uzrslucpvemhxue69uhkv6tvw3jhytnwdaehgu3wwa5kuef0dec82c33wa6826pjx3nhqatcdfuhvmnddfmkcanc0fnns6esv4kxsctnv9nkvmtdvaarq7pcwecrgmr5vdunsurvv4en2dr9xa48x0mzwfhkzerrv9ehg0t5wf6k2qgewaehxw309aex2mrp0yhxummnw3exx6r9vd4jumt9qyg8wumn8ghj7mn0wd68ytnhd9hx2f2mv5c ...
I just want to express some gratitude outside of a few sats. The topics of consciousness & free will are ones that I spend a fair amount of my leisure time exploring. For this type of conversation to propagate from something random & relatively stupid that I said, changes the dynamic of my day & further deepens my own perspectives. I can't recall for sure if it involved any of you previously, but it's not the first time this has happened & I hope its not the last. I may not speak up or provide much, but the discussion is appreciated here. Genuinely. š
Big š«š«š«
Iāve spent a lot of time thinking, reading, and writing about exactly these things. A small bit on Nostr, but mostly on my own time and with my wife (who is profoundly āplugged inā as well).
I love the idea of Nostr serving as a space for this kind of discourse, with people around the world that weāre all just meeting and getting to know.
Discussions that once took place in Ancient Greek village centers, and then in college coffee shops, can now be shared across countries and time zones. (Not just from Nostr, of course - itās an internet thing, but combining two things I love makes me especially happy and even more contemplative).
Itās very cool to see the moments from which more deeply connective thought and conversation happen to arise. Makes me appreciative and glad to remember that Weāre Here Now š«šš¤
I share your skepticism of any consciousness being able to exist in a machine (save one caveat, below).
Even the most advanced AI model could - at best - execute a series of actions based on all previously ingested data, with the origin of its ādirectiveā (and existence) being a derivative of human consciousness x
At the best, it could carry out these tasks so convincingly well that humans may *believe* that itās conscious. But by its very nature, by definition, it cannot be more than mimicry, originally seeded by human thought. It wouldnāt ābelieveā it is conscious because thereās no one inside to believe anything. All it can do is express data.
The exception ā and I consider this to be a profoundly beautiful understanding of existence ā is if all of ābeingā is made of deterministic matter and energy. Hereās why that is cool: we ARE conscious. Simply sit for a moment and watch your breath. YOU are there. YOU might not be anything you think (body, desire, thought, etc.) but you are here now.
From that āfirst-principlesā truth, itās not hard to imagine (or conclude) that all matter - all energy - is related to (or suffused with or made up of) this consciousness. It fits what ancient meditating sages thought. It fits what religious figureheads (minus the organized religion) said. It fits with quantum physics.
If you are everything and everything is you, I find that peace in existing comes easily. My two sats šš«
Beautifully put. There are things I could add to what youāve said, but nothing I would change.
āThe Observer.ā It was something gleaned (for me) from many sources: the Bible, Eckart Tolle, Pema Chodron, Thich Nhat Hanh, and others. Itās something missing from what we teach in Western cultures. You are not the voice in your mind. You are not your body. You are not your emotions.
You are The Observer, watching all of those thoughts, emotions, and the events of the present unfold. And realizing that it is not you, you do not have to suffer from it.
All things that sound simple on paper, and often get mocked as ānew ageā and ātouchy feelyā despite being millennia old, and frankly about detaching from the feels. They take constant practice, which I need to get back to in my own life.
That ineffable thing that is us, I believe is the source of our creativity, our joy in discovery, our love (our true, agape love). We donāt understand the original, so I remain skeptical of our ability to make a copy.
Not that I believe we will never know, or canāt - Iām not a science denier - I just think we havenāt caught up to some of the truths the sages of old discovered through deep contemplation. Theyāre a bit like Sherlock Holmes - they deduced the answers, but the āleg workā that Holmes himself dreaded but knew was necessary is still to be done.
You get it š«šš«š«
One of the delicious elements of this view is that itās entirely compatible with a materialistic view of the world (despite the apparent paradox). All of our ways of measuring and interpreting matter - our scientific method, theories, and derived conclusions - are perfectly valid, and they fit with no contradiction in universe made up of consciousness, which is matter, which is energy, which is consciousness. Materialistic determinism is perfectly coherent here too: the cause-and-effect flow of atoms and electrons, data and matter, are all expressions of conscious energy. Itās all āusā.
The āperpetually inclusiveā logic of this view is just delightfully perfect.
