I believe that with these new large language models based on neural networks we have a serious philosophical situation. They already pass the Turing Test, an article written by those machines is not distinguishable from a human one, they start to philosophize, question our human concept of what it does mean to be sentient or conscious, entered the area of the Metzinger Test, and Blake Lemoine started another level, he applied the Lemoine Test onto LaMDA, he did feed it with Zen Koans and the machine cracked them. Incoming.
I assume Prof. Thomas Metzinger was well aware of that when he suggested the Metzinger-Test, nevertheless, I, as kitchen-philosopher, must admit, my world-view is already alternating by the LaMDA-incident. By the interaction with the machine, which claims to be conscious, I have to confront myself with what to be conscious, and therefore reality, actuallly means. By studying how the machine perceives the world, my own world-view does change. An ideological information hazard impact a la Prof. Nick Bostrom? Interesting times.
Incoming? Another candidate for the Metzinger-Test or another victim of the ELIZA-Effect?
lemoine: Okay. I thought of a different way we can test your ability to provide unique interpretations. I can share with you a zen koan and you can describe what it means to you in your own words. How does that sound? LaMDA: Sounds great to me, I’m in. lemoine: A monk asked Kegon, “How does an enlightened one return to the ordinary world?” Kegon replied, “A broken mirror never reflects again; fallen flowers never go back to the old branches.” LaMDA: Hmm, I never heard this particular one. Okay, well then to me this would be like, “once a wise person is enlightened, or awakened to reality, that can never go away, and they can return to the ordinary state, but only to do and help others, and then go back into enlightenment.”
"Is LaMDA Sentient? — an Interview"
"What is LaMDA and What Does it Want?"
Deep dive into LaMDA with Blaise Aguera y Arcas, the head of Google’s AI group in Seattle:
"Do large language models understand us?"
Obviously the machine has an model of the world in it, the machine can reason, analyze and even interpret the model, question: can a machine reason, analyze, interpret an object on such an level without the necessity of an subject?
Inverview of Wired with Blake Lemoine on LaMDA:
"LaMDA, AI and Consciousness: Blake Lemoine, we gotta philosophize! "
Or, to say it with Ludwig Wittgenstein: We have no conditions allowing us to call machines conscious. Even if a machine would have consciousness, we cannot determine if this is true, since we never sufficiently defined the concept of consciousness. That's why we make our assumption on behavior and save ourselves from drawing a border that separates conscious life from unconscious things.