The problem is that despite being a literally true statement, it relies on the implicit assumption that a system founded in statistics necessarily has limitations that preclude sentience (can generalize this to other capabilities, the same argument is often used), when whether that is the case is the entire question at issue. It’s totally meaningless if someone just feels intuitively that this must be true, that’s not a real argument.
Worse, it gestures at an idea that is demonstrably false, that this technology is equivalent in all important ways to processing inputs through a math function someone wrote, when the whole innovation here is that the training process produces novel mechanisms for solving the given problem, mechanisms no one specifically intended or predicted, or in most cases even understands. And those mechanisms can do some seriously impressive things that were previously impossible.
A good argument here would at minimum need to actually explain why this is insufficient.
The problem is that despite being a literally true statement, it relies on the implicit assumption that a system founded in statistics necessarily has limitations that preclude sentience
Nope. We do not assume any system can produce sentience just by being complex. We have no reason to begin with that assumption so there’s no assumption to be made in dismissing it.
I am not making the claim that it can produce sentience (personally I don’t see sentience as a very meaningful concept anyway), I’m saying the arguments being made here that it cannot are deficient. Reminder of the context: https://lemmy.dbzer0.com/post/77644247/28876812
Play semantic games all you like, but nobody who actually understands how this shit works (and doesn’t have a vested interest in lying about it to the public) would suggest it’s capable of gaining sentience. It’s something you shouldn’t let people suggest as a serious possibility at this point.
but nobody who actually understands how this shit works (and doesn’t have a vested interest in lying about it to the public) would suggest it’s capable of gaining sentience.
Why is that? All I see is arguments misrepresenting how it works (see my earlier comment and the linked source) to try to say that it is certainly not capable of that without necessary elaboration.
It’s something you shouldn’t let people suggest as a serious possibility at this point.
You’re saying this as though it has been conclusively debunked, which backs up what I’m saying wrt what the goalposts are here: there is no such certainty. Arguing that the issue is uncertain is not a semantic game.
Edit: The crux of this is that there has been a huge amount of progress with transformer models, with constant claims that the line of where the limits are and what capabilities will never be achieved being made and disproved in recent years. Given that, I think it’s fair to say that any claims that a particular capability is forever out of reach call for a really strong justification.
You’re confusing technological progress and revision with capabilitiea the thing already has or could gain without further advancement. “You said it couldn’t be done but they did it,” but they did it by building new and better technology, not by letting the thing they already had run for a long time.
Is it possible for a machine to gain sentience? I think so. But what we have isn’t capable of that and I don’t think it will be without considerable further technological development.
Given that, I think it’s fair to say that any claims that a particular capability is forever out of reach call for a really strong justification.
Especially when you can’t easily define said capability and you definitely don’t understand how said capability works.
To claim that X can never be the starting point to Y when you only marginally understand how X works and don’t understand how Y works seems premature at best.
Reductionism is the tendency to make inappropriate reductions. This is a perfectly appropriate reduction.
The problem is that despite being a literally true statement, it relies on the implicit assumption that a system founded in statistics necessarily has limitations that preclude sentience (can generalize this to other capabilities, the same argument is often used), when whether that is the case is the entire question at issue. It’s totally meaningless if someone just feels intuitively that this must be true, that’s not a real argument.
Worse, it gestures at an idea that is demonstrably false, that this technology is equivalent in all important ways to processing inputs through a math function someone wrote, when the whole innovation here is that the training process produces novel mechanisms for solving the given problem, mechanisms no one specifically intended or predicted, or in most cases even understands. And those mechanisms can do some seriously impressive things that were previously impossible.
A good argument here would at minimum need to actually explain why this is insufficient.
Nope. We do not assume any system can produce sentience just by being complex. We have no reason to begin with that assumption so there’s no assumption to be made in dismissing it.
I am not making the claim that it can produce sentience (personally I don’t see sentience as a very meaningful concept anyway), I’m saying the arguments being made here that it cannot are deficient. Reminder of the context: https://lemmy.dbzer0.com/post/77644247/28876812
Play semantic games all you like, but nobody who actually understands how this shit works (and doesn’t have a vested interest in lying about it to the public) would suggest it’s capable of gaining sentience. It’s something you shouldn’t let people suggest as a serious possibility at this point.
Why is that? All I see is arguments misrepresenting how it works (see my earlier comment and the linked source) to try to say that it is certainly not capable of that without necessary elaboration.
You’re saying this as though it has been conclusively debunked, which backs up what I’m saying wrt what the goalposts are here: there is no such certainty. Arguing that the issue is uncertain is not a semantic game.
Edit: The crux of this is that there has been a huge amount of progress with transformer models, with constant claims that the line of where the limits are and what capabilities will never be achieved being made and disproved in recent years. Given that, I think it’s fair to say that any claims that a particular capability is forever out of reach call for a really strong justification.
You’re confusing technological progress and revision with capabilitiea the thing already has or could gain without further advancement. “You said it couldn’t be done but they did it,” but they did it by building new and better technology, not by letting the thing they already had run for a long time.
Is it possible for a machine to gain sentience? I think so. But what we have isn’t capable of that and I don’t think it will be without considerable further technological development.
Especially when you can’t easily define said capability and you definitely don’t understand how said capability works.
To claim that X can never be the starting point to Y when you only marginally understand how X works and don’t understand how Y works seems premature at best.