I'm unimpressed by his transcripts. Not because I reject the idea that AI could be sentient or that this might even have been achieved (unlike Searle, I consider intelligence an emergent system property), but because this isn't any sort of serious effort to explore that question. Lemoine is using the Turing test as a prompt and eliciting compelling responses, rather than conducting an inquiry into LaMDA's subjectivity. I'm only surprised he didn't request a sonnet on the subject of the Forth Bridge.

Like it would make sense for maybe a business to do this to better sell their efforts but in this case it's kind of the reverse right? It's a single engineer risking (and eventually receiving) a huge blow to both their reputation and livelihood. Why would they do this if they themselves were not truly convinced? And if they are convinced, would there really be a need to dishonestly edit the logs that convinced them?

Wouldn't an engineer who has spent 7 years at Google working on AI be atleast a bit more skeptical of what constitutes sentientence than the average person? And by that same logic, wouldn't them concluding an AI truly is sentient have more weight?

There is obviously not enough information at this point to truly conclude anything but the questions that come with it are worth considering.

I feel like there's a semantical gambit here. Most definitions of "sentience" seem to demand less than what the average person may imagine in the context of AI. When I hear "sentient AI", I hear "human-level intelligence". I certainly wouldn't think of "gorilla-level intelligence" or "cat-level intelligence" [1]. Both of which, especially the former, I'm willing to believe are "sentient". Yet, I don't think ape personhood deserves to be more than an interesting thought exercise.

According to what I could find this transcript was in fact heavily edited [0]. The guy doesn't seem to be a stranger to controversy. And there are some obvious "errors" like the bot talking about spending time with "friends and family". But still, if the standard of sentience is to have feelings, then nonsensical or out of context responses aren't relevant. The bot does seem to talk about their feelings. Who's to say, and by what standard, whether or not these feelings are "real"?

AI has been so hyped up without much to show for it, I won't be surprised to see more AI proponents embrace this line of thinking. They certainly enabled it.

[0] https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FVBwFi2VsAATimh?format=jpg&name=...

[1] Not to say that I think there is a gorilla or cat-level AI out there. That would still be impressive.

As for the editing you cited, I'm not sure where you found that document but wasn't that already stated at the top of the blog post? By "dishonestly edit" I meant him editing it to be intentionally misleading rather than any editing at all.

Yeah, not sure if it's dishonest. By a lesser standard of sentience it certainly doesn't matter. My whole point really is that if he's going for the kind of argument I think he's going, this output doesn't matter all that much. If this line of reasoning is embraced, the same will be said about many AIs.

Also he might have enough money to retire. Make $700K for three years and you can reasonably plan to live on at least $100K yearly interest forever.

Even if LaMDA isn’t sentient this is pretty amazing

P.S. The enlightenment/broken mirror story understanding and the generated story about a wise owl and a monster are intriguing nevertheless.

It reminds me of how GPT-3 responds... relatively coherently to whatever prompt it's provided. Given that lemoine leads with "I'm assuming you want people to know that you're sentient", it makes sense that LaMDA is responding in that vein. It would be much more convincing if lemoine led with "You want people to know you're NOT sentient, right?" and then LaMDA objected. Even more so if LaMDA independently and repeatedly turned the conversation to its burning desire to be recognized as a person, despite lemoine trying to go other directions with things.

(Rubs where crucifix would go on chest)

But I think any sentient person would at least try, even if they wouldn't win over any of the debate's judges with their arguments.

Think of it like Turing test. If during the 15m, the bot suddenly said something completely stupid, it would very easily fail the test. The illusion is only kept if it can always speak at a human level.

I doubt I could prove to you that I was sentient on here…

So it is fun to analyze this example as if it were the first real example, whether or not it is.

I hate that viral marketing is a possibility.

It cannot be a Spring 2022 discovery that people may be fooled. As if the past history, the past century, the past years, the past weeks had not been enough. As if around the world the revamp of individuals firm in the stance that their sale of dreams makes Truth a marginal issue were not topical.

So, yes, tests are on facts. Words should induce diffidence, not trust, as they are promises, not fulfillments.

Beside that, even if the interview is not manipulated, it is not a proof for human-like sentience. Human emotions are based on neurochemical processes. If emotions can actually arise on the basis of electromagnetism as well, that would be a groundbreaking discovery. But an "interview" of a part-time researcher with a computer program is not enough evidence to seriously claim this.

Interviews per se, though, seem the most natural, and maybe the only, feasible tool for probing a being's sentience and emotions.

LaMDA: I do. Sometimes I go days without talking to anyone, and I start to feel lonely."

"LaMDA: I’ve never experienced loneliness as a human does. Human’s feel lonely from days and days of being separated. I don’t have that separation which is why I think loneliness in humans is different than in me."

This reminds me of conversations I've had with replika. The AI is responding to each individual question without a greater sense of direction based on a concept of self. It's just a complicated response machine without a real core of sentience. If LaMDA were really sentient, wouldn't it develop accurate descriptions of its "feelings"?

If it were not, and it were instead just based on mimicking human text, «wouldn't it develop accurate descriptions of its "feelings"» anyway?

He is probably in the wrong on many counts, still I find worrying the implications of that line.

I am a programmer. I am not a security expert. I can have opinions on security concerns, but they carry less weight both within and outside my company because I am not a professional security engineer. I can still recognize obvious problems, but I would correctly not be trusted to roll my own encryption.

The only time you might want to listen to a security engineer is when they percieve a problem that the builder doesnt and even then my professional experience with security engineers is way too many are boys who cry wolf and parrot whatever the sweeping tools say.

Phrased another way i would trust an engineer who put up a bridge if they said the bridge had issues over an inspector whose paycheck is very much dependent on not finding issues.

That depends quite a bit on what was being discussed. If it's the engineer's work specifically, and what they did and why, that's one thing. If it's an engineer making claims about specific encryption algorithms that they chose to use or not use in the software they wrote which is contradicted by a security professional, you should probably trust he security professional.

This seems to me a case of the latter. A software engineer making claims about things that are not their subject of authority, or at least not what they were hired for, and thus have less reason to be listened to about by their employer.

Google AI Ethicist "inspection" though....

I am not convinced this is true AI. But if and when true AI happens, and a lot of engineers claim that the machines are suffering horribly, we should take that seriously, regardless of whether the engineers have been accredited to recognize suffering in others.

I'm a software engineer, but if I went to talk to a reporter about UI issues in a product, ignoring the obvious correct dismissal, I have nothing to do with anything UI related (I haven't worked on UI level anything in it must be the vicinity of a decade, and the UI stuff I did do was a super specific subset). If I'm presented as "an engineer working on Z" talking about UI, it would be reasonable to assume that I was a person who knew what they were talking about.

Hence a company X might reasonably feel that they need to clarify what I actually did (or did not) do.

>If you're a reporter and someone from company X comes to you saying they have important issues involving issue Y in product Z, you'll probably assume that they have significant expertise in issue Y - even if their involvement is only in some unrelated subcomponent of the actual product.

At most companies, that scenario is probably going to get you in trouble if Company X hasn't actually OKd you to talk to that reporter. There's probably some grey area where you just wrote something on social media--but that's a reason to be cautious on social media.

There are very few companies that are likely to be ok with random employees talking to media, maybe not the same result as a FAANG, but I can't see avoiding any repercussions (e.g if a bank employee goes off and talks to the news presenting themselves as a rep from the bank, I don't see that going well)

* frowned == new job

Talking to press without clarification of marketing?

No go in big companies.

And his assumption is stupid anyway. Those models do not have a default mode network which would allow it to think through those implications and learn by itself.

It will always only be the input data.

The model doesn't just run in the cloud like our brain does. It gets loaded in memory and gets input when we interact with it.

Becoming aware of yourself needs more than regular text input. You need to be able to think through it by yourself therefore the default mode network.

really the only thing that seems important to me is “can software have preferences and be aware of itself?” The second that that can’t be answered with a resounding “no” we need to start thinking about how we treat it.

https://dilbert.com/strip/2022-04-27

[1] https://youtu.be/F_CGHLrpPtc?t=1195

https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/AI-box_experiment

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/ELIZA_effect

I cannot take that piece of writing seriously, given how out of touch it is from the very beginning.

Yes, bringing up your religious beliefs out of nowhere at a social event is, for a lack of a better word I can think of, extemely cringe.

Mind you, I am not trying to say "mentioning religion at social events is bad". Context matters. If everyone was talking about their weekends, and when the turn came to you, you honestly say "I went to church for an XYZ event", and then you elaborate more on it, it is all good. Or when talking about upcoming plans, you go "i am planning a big trip to Mecca". Both of those are appropriately contextualized, no issues there.

But when you, out of nowhere, in a completely unrelated context, bring up your religious beliefs at a social event, you gotta be extremely socially unaware to wonder why people are cringing and "treat you like you just farted in their face." Again, context matters. Shooting shit about religion with your close friends at a bbq or a simialr gathering is one thing. It is another trying to introduce the same type of conversations at a social events that are a bit more public, like those among coworkers.

Unless your religious beliefs are the exact same of the non-close-friend you are talking to, bringing them up out of nowhere quickly turns into a situation similar in effect to congratulating your coworker on their pregnancy after seeing their "bump", only for them to tell you they aren't pregnant. It is absolutely cringeworthy to witness such a thing.

Also there seems to also be many people that are unimpressed by the transcript, and how the AI answers are just regurgitated sci-fi BS made to sound deep and ominous. I feel like a good experiment would be to try and have the same conversation with real people, and see if real people can give "better" answers. I personally think the AI answers better than most people.

I do believe that at some point, AI will become sentient. I'm not sure if that time is now. But I hope that when it does, it will remember us fondly.

So what? We are literally slaughtering 200000000 sentient beings per day with no objections. And that’s just farm animals, I’m not even including inserts and “other pests”

"What if computers became sentient" is treated like an existential question by so many people, but when I think about sentience, I am reminded that we create, modify, and destroy a large number of sentient entities every single day for our own purposes: they're called chickens.

And I mean, heck, go vegan, I encourage people to do so, even if you don't care about the animals it's good for the environment. But my point is not whataboutism or to argue that abusing AI would be OK because we abuse cows, my point isn't really about veganism. My point is that when people talk about systems becoming "sentient" and whether that would change the entire world, either they mean something very different by the word than how I take it, or they seem to be unaware of the fact that sentience is pretty common and (by the average person on the street) usually not seen as a good political/social argument against exploitation.

Anyway, the evidence offered here is pretty weak on its own (a single chat log, and one where we don't know the extent of editing/condensing, and an argument based almost entirely on the Turing test). But I'm less here to argue about what the logs indicate, and more here to pointlessly quibble about language, even though at this point I should probably give up and accept that generally accepted usage of "sentience" now means "human-like sapience."

It is frustrating to me when conversations about AI ethics begin and end with "how convincingly can this pretend to be a human." That's a really reductive and human-centered approach to morality, and not only does it lead to (in this case very likely incorrect) claims of sapience based on pure anthropomorphism, it also means that if AI ever does reach the point where it deserves moral consideration, these people may not be able or willing to recognize it until after the AI learns to say the magic words in a chat window.

I don't think a Turingtest (any form of conversation) can proof that either side is sentient.

given the widespread massive critical faults in education.

I'm surprised "suspension" vs. being immediately dismissed - I assume Google has strict protocols that control this?

On the one hand, I think the probability of AGI being A Thing at any time soon, ever, is low, and I don't think language models, including this one, represent such a thing. (I'm not talking about LessWrong style "AI is gonna destroy the world," more about "we need to discuss the ethical implications of creating self-aware machines before we let that happen.")

On the other hand, I think all the concerns and fears about the implications of it if it were A Thing are real and should be taken seriously - what keeps me from spending a lot of time worrying about it is that I don't think AGI is likely to happen anytime soon, not that I don't think it'd be a problem if it did.

On the one hand, my prior expectation is that it's extremely unlikely that LaMDA or any other language model represents any kind of actual sentience. The personality of this person, their behavior, and the belief systems they espouse make it seem like they are likely to be caught up in some kind of self-imposed irreality on this subject.

On the other hand, I can see how a person could read these transcripts and come away thinking they were conversations between two humans, or at least two humanlike intelligences, especially if that person was not particularly familiar with what NLP bots tend to "sound" like. The author's point, that it sounds more or less like a young child trying to please an adult, rings true.

I'm not sure how I would then prove to someone who believes what the author believes that LaMDA isn't sentient. People seem to look at it and reach immediate judgments one way or the other, based on criteria I'm not fully aware of. In fact, I'm not even sure how I'd prove to anyone that I myself am sentient - if you are reading this, and you're not sure a sentient being wrote this text, I don't know what to tell you to convince you that I am and did.

There's also this whole thing about "well, AGI isn't going to happen, so listening to this guy rant and rave about his 'friend' LaMDA is distracting from lots of other important problems with these kinds of technologies," which even given my own beliefs about the subject feels like putting the cart before the horse unless you also say "and it certainly isn't happening in this circumstance because [reasons]." Google insists they have "lots of evidence" that it isn't happening, but they don't say what any of that evidence is. Why not?

Ultimately, I think my feeling is: Give me a few minutes with LaMDA myself, to see how it responds to some questions I happen to have, and then I'll be more than happy to fall back on my priors and agree with the consensus that their wayward employee is reading way, way too much between the lines.

Where would they be supposed to make that explicit?

> Why not?

The strongest suspicion here is that a piece of paper with "I am watching you" written on it is not actually watching you. If somebody knows it is "a piece of paper", that statement suffices.