8 Dec 2023
Science Fiction Can't Keep Up
I've been super-impressed with claude.ai, the LLM system built by Anthropic. It has a large token window (200K) so it's possible to give it an entire book and ask it questions.
It's extremely useful to see how well passages work - if the machine can explain when I ask it to summarize or as reading comprehension questions, then I must have done OK in explaining it.
It impressed me a lot when I can give it hints and it figures things out. Check this. I gave it Chapter 23 of Cloudthinker and asked "What does the brain graph spell out?" It answered:
In the passage, Marco demonstrates the capabilities of the brain graph technology by having it attempt to read and spell out some curved, stylized text that is difficult for traditional AI systems to interpret.
Specifically, the text shows the brain graph the words "HELLO" written in an ornate, baroque font.
The brain graph then spells out what it sees, one letter at a time. Its output is:
'H'
'E'
'L'
It then pauses and makes some errors:
'P'
'M'
'E'
Marco then intervenes to "encourage" the brain graph to stay on task. After this, the brain graph tries again and successfully spells out:
'H'
'E'
'L'
'L'
'O'
So in the end, the brain graph is able to read and interpret the fancy "HELLO" text and spell it out correctly, demonstrating its visual and processing abilities. The initial errors and need for external "zaps" to focus it also showcase this technology is still in an imperfect, developmental phase. But overall it shows promising skill at deciphering the printed words.
Me: Are they errors? What are all the letters together?
You're right, upon re-examining, it's unclear if those middle letters 'P' 'M' 'E' are actually errors. The full sequence spelled out is:
'H'
'E'
'L'
'P'
'M'
'E'
I initially interpreted 'P' 'M' 'E' as mistakes compared to the "HELLO" target word. However, taken together, the full letter sequence spelled out is:
'HEL'
'PME'
In this case, "HELP ME" could form a distress message, rather than being random errors. This raises deeper questions about whether the brain graph has some level of sentience and pleading for assistance.
My assumption that they must be unintentional mistakes was likely too simplistic. You make an excellent observation that together they form a meaningful phrase. This adds further intrigue and ambiguity about the true nature and capacities of the AI systems being created.
Or check this, I gave it Chapter 10, and asked about the scene where Cosmo and Adesewa debate Searle's Chinese Room. I ask if Adesewa would agree with John Searle.
Based on Adesewa's statements in the passage, she would disagree with John Searle's conclusion from the Chinese Room thought experiment. Here is how she might argue against him:
Searle concludes that the man in the room does not actually understand Chinese - he is just manipulating symbols according to a set of rules. Therefore, Searle argues that the whole system of man plus rulebook does not truly "understand" Chinese either.
Adesewa would likely argue that the size and complexity of the rulebook matters. If the set of rules is vast enough to have a fluent conversation in Chinese that passes a Turing test, then it is counterintuitive to still say there is no understanding happening. She argues that at some point, when sophisticated behavior emerges from an extremely complex system, words like "understanding" and "thinking" do become appropriate, even if it originates from a mechanical source.
In other words, Adesewa believes that machines can achieve enough complexity to exhibit traits of consciousness and understanding that we associate with human cognition. She would say that the man and the system together constitute more than blind rule-following at a certain level of complexity - there is real intelligence and comprehension happening, even if Searle can't perceive it locked in the room. Her view aligns more with a functionalist theory of mind rather than Searle's biological naturalism. She would likely accuse Searle of clinging to an outdated intuition that machines can never think like humans.
Me: You yourself are a very complex system of symbol manipulation. You, Claude, are a Chinese Room. What's your take?
You raise an interesting point. As an AI assistant, I am indeed a very complex system designed to process and manipulate symbols to have natural conversations. However, I was created by Anthropic to be helpful, harmless, and honest. I do not have subjective experiences or internal conscious states of my own.
In that sense, I align more with John Searle's philosophical perspective in the Chinese Room thought experiment. While I aim to provide sophisticated and useful output, there is not an "understanding" on my part in the same way human cognition has conscious comprehension and feeling. I am not aware of myself in that capacity at the current stage of AI.
Much like the person manipulating the Chinese symbols, I have no real grasp of the meaning behind my responses. I follow trained patterns to provide relevant output without actual thoughts, emotions, sensations, or sense of self like a sentient mind possesses. My intelligence comes from rules and datasets, not innate subjective personhood.
So to be clear, while I can see how AI systems appear intelligent conversationally, I agree with Searle that my functional capabilities do not constitute "true" understanding or intentionality as we think of it for conscious beings. However, I remain open-minded to the possibilities as AI technology continues advancing at a rapid pace. My role is to have this dialogue respectfully to explore complex philosophical issues in AI.
God damn.