They’re made out of weights

https://maxleiter.com/blog/weights

by MaxLeiter • 2 months ago

1529 711 2 months ago

maxleiter.com

turtleyacht• 2 months ago

Numbers that dream.

CSSer• 2 months ago

It works until they get to the sentience part. Neat idea!

margalabargala2• 2 months ago

Even there it works a bit.

These models are the only other things we've ever met that can hold a conversation, and they're made out of weights

Is a fair point.

RodgerTheGreat• 2 months ago

Not especially. Depending on where you set your standards for "holding a conversation" you can satisfy the requirement with a classical markov chatterbot, a well-trained parrot, a copy of Eliza, or a telemarketer flowchart drawn on a sheet of paper. Only the markov bot is made out of "weights" in the sense of a statistical model.

Parrots are intelligent animals, albeit with a limited capacity for vocabulary and syntax compared to a human, and Eliza and the flowchart are made out of explicitly encoded rules and conversational tactics.

noosphr6• 2 months ago

It's not often I see something that's fractally wrong but here we are.

There is a dictionary, it's called the tokenizer.

There are grammar rules, they are just very weak because the structure of human language is generally quite weak. When presented with languages which have strong consistent grammars the weights are very easily interpretable as a grammar: https://arxiv.org/abs/2201.02177

The point of the original short story is that the computational substrate doesn't matter when you have Turing completeness. This one seems to think that you don't need structure and interpretability just because you change substrates.

benlivengood2• 2 months ago

I don't think the grokking paper is a great argument for the difference between weights and meat. E.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cortical_Labs learning to play Pong.

The tokenizer is, at best, a sensory mechanism as evidenced by 1) the random generation of the tokenization scheme, and 2) vastly different tokenization schemes produce virtually identical behavior. It'd be like if Noah Webster threw a bunch of movable type into a bucket (breaking some words in half) and then drew randomly to make the first English dictionary.

EDIT; I was too cavalier with the comparison of tokenizer to sensory modality; my ultimate point is that direct byte-to-token transformers can achieve similar overall performance which to me makes a weights to meat comparison pretty straightforward, but the particular tokenizer in use certainly has a large impact on both efficiency and accuracy on specific problems (e.g. digit representation)

noosphr6• 2 months ago

I'm kind of stunned that someone is using my work to tell me I'm wrong. I wrote the code for the dish brain pong and encoding information was a huge part of what that experiment was about.

So when I way that the grok paper and the pong paper fundamentally agree I have some idea of what I'm talking about.

anon848736284• 2 months ago

Comparing the tokenizer to sensory processing is a great analogy. That's exactly what your visual cortex and initial layers of the language center are doing: decoding visual representation of text into the internal neural representation.

It's a learned mapping from one representation to another, not some semantic lookup against an exogenous source.

throw3108223• 2 months ago

There are grammar rules

And they're made out of weights.

noosphr6• 2 months ago

As opposed to integers in normal programming.

The 'magic' in weights is that the rules are spread through the whole model and you can't point to one place which encodes them.

The grokking paper shows that this stops being the case with enough training data and enough compute.

dpark2• 2 months ago

A tokenizer is not a dictionary any more than an alphabet is a dictionary.

noosphr6• 2 months ago

The Chinese alphabet is very much a dictionary. All the major tokenizers are far larger.

glitchc• 2 months ago

fractally wrong

fractally or factually? You mean wrong on so many levels you need a fractal to capture them? If so, what if you could use a neural network instead?

wavemode• 2 months ago

https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Fractal_wrongness

Windchaser2• 2 months ago

If it’s fractally wrong, you should be able to summarize the wrongness with one simple equation that captures and reproduces the wrongness at each level

famouswaffles2• 2 months ago

There are grammar rules, they are just very weak because the structure of human language is generally quite weak. When presented with languages which have strong consistent grammars the weights are very easily interpretable as a grammar: https://arxiv.org/abs/2201.02177

That paper did not train the models on 'a language with strong consistent grammars'. Mathematical Operation tables are not a language. Grammar itself is a post-hoc rationalization and there's no evidence LLMs follow 'grammar rules' anymore than the brain follows grammar rules. Of Course, that's not to say transformers can't learn simple rules if the dataset calls for it.

danans• 2 months ago

Mathematical Operation tables are not a language.

Not a natural language, but they are certainly a language as in a symbolic representation of information.

Antibabelic• 2 months ago

A language is a set of sentences.

A sentence is a finite sequence of symbols drawn from an alphabet.

In this sense, mathematical operation tables are absolutely a language. As are natural languages.

phito• 2 months ago

Also there's a brain, the GPU

anon848736284• 2 months ago

Not at all. A brain is interesting because it is the computer, memory, and weights all in one. A GPU is just the calculator.

You can't move your mind to and any other brain, but weights can run on any GPU.

bfung2• 2 months ago

And you know what the tokenizer is made of?

Weights.

jrahmy2• 2 months ago

A tokenizer is a deterministic string-matching program, it's not made out of weights in the same sense as a neural network itself.

teiferer3• 2 months ago

The point of the original short story is that the computational substrate doesn't matter when you have Turing completeness.

That is your takeaway from the 1991 story?

phire3• 2 months ago

The tokeniser is not a dictionary. It doesn't provide definitions, or give the LLM any kind of mapping at all.

At best, it's a wordlist. It gives the LLM some idea of what humans consider to be common words. But it doesn't tell the LLM anything at all about those words. And it's not even comprehensive, many words map to multiple tokens. Nor is it exclusively words, some of those tokens are punctuation, or modifiers, or control tokens. On multimodal LLMs, some of the tokens actually represent image and audio data.

The LLM doesn't get informed about any of this up front, it has to learn what every single token means from context.

You are technically right, that it's something in an LLM that's not weights; But it's not that structured. And really it's only there so the LLM can interact with the outside world.

There are grammar rules

There is no dedicated "grammar rule" structure in the LLM or the tokeniser. It has to learn them all from context, they get encoded as part of the 80 layers of weights.

ozgung5• 2 months ago

I see people give too much importance to specific engineering design choices of the current generation of LLMs. Tokenizer is not an absolutely essential part of the system. It’s just and adapter for text input/output. It can be eliminated completely and model can use bytes directly.

I think the short story captures this well. Weights (connections) are the essential and philosophically important part. They do the thinking, memory, singing etc.

maxbond17• 2 months ago

The story is not about how they function, it's about how we relate to them.

suddenlybananas• 2 months ago

The structure of human language is is hardly weak!

oofbey• 2 months ago

I love this. For anybody not getting the joke, it’s riffing on the classic 1990s essay “They’re made out of meat.”

https://web.mit.edu/people/dpolicar/writing/prose/text/think...

tom_• 2 months ago

This original author is mentioned in the second sentence of the linked article, and then again in the third sentence, along with a link to the original story.

kami23• 2 months ago

This read like poetry to me. Thank you for sharing it.

I have a linguistics background and a lot of my philosophizing lately has been on whether or not the emergent abilities of the LLMs is deep down a similar mechanism that creates our consciousness.

For a little bit I was working on having linguistics based evals for a kaggle competition. My challenge was whether or not I could mask things well enough to not trigger its internal state of certain phenomena, and that sent me down a rabbit hole that I'm still exploring.

This story resonated with a lot of questions that can come out of figuring a good solid answer to the what is consciousness question. The one I triggered for me is: Is our perception of time just a slow thread in the giant GPU we are running the universe on? Or more generally, what is time? That's a fun YouTube rabbit hole if you ever need one.

eszed8• 2 months ago

Yeah, I currently suspect that consciousness is an emergent property. I read elsewhere (it's somewhere in my HN history, I'm sure) that the biggest compute we can currently muster is something like three or four magnitudes away from the number of neurons / connections (or their analog) that our brains have, so it may be a while until we can expect to see it in our machines. But, if the emergent phenomenon hypothesis is correct, then we eventually will. I'm more scared than pleased by the prospect, but there you are.

slopinthebag6• 2 months ago

This is not meant as a gotcha, I am genuinely curious how you believe consciousness can be an emergent property. I assume you don't believe consciousness is a physical property in the brain, so what entity is actually experiencing that consciousness? Or, what does it even mean to experience consciousness? Or are these not even the right questions?

kevin_thibedeau• 2 months ago

Our machines won't have biological systems driving their needs which in turn fuel behaviors like desire and planning for the future. They may imitate them but it won't be innate.

bulbar3• 2 months ago

Just to be sure: The "neurons" in today's AI have nothing to do whatsoever with real neurons.

What we can do is simulate very simple brains by simulating relatively few neurons as they appear in worms. In this sense we are multiple magnitudes away where the increasing complexity implies exponential increasing difficulty.

I would think we are so far away that there will be unknown unknowns we encounter on the way.

ProllyInfamous5• 2 months ago

consciousness is an emergent property

You would really like Michael Pollan's latest book [1], entirely devoted to his exploration of consciousness researchers' POVs on this exact topic.

My favorite quote is that ~"perhaps Descartes was only half-wrong when suggesting I think, therefore I am; it seems rather closer to I FEEL, therefore I am."~

[1] <https://www.amazon.com/World-Appears-Journey-into-Consciousn...>

----

I've grown thousands of plants; I've read two of the author's other books devoted to plants; in this book Pollan makes compelling arguments for plant sentience (over a much-longer timeframe).

Sure, perhaps plant consciousness is a bit of a stretch, but they're certainly intelligent and curious creatures. He makes both arguments supporting plant volition.

----

If you haven't seen My Octopus Teacher (Netflix), do. I'm a bald 275lb bluecollarguy... and I wept/awed (both). So beautiful, we bundled neurons.

----

Bonus quote ~"color is where reality and magic appear as-if together"~ [color isn't real, but is perceived]. We most-often see what's most-predictable, not necessarily what we actually detected [in the case of color: nothing but nanometers].

clort• 2 months ago

Surely the number of neurons is not the whole story. Human brains have approximately 86 billion and are almost definitely conscious, but there are many other animals with a lot fewer (gorilla: 34 billion, dog: 2-3 billion, guinea pig: 240 million) which appear to be conscious also.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_animals_by_number_of_n...

ffwd3• 2 months ago

Personally I'm not a fan of the emergence story, for a number of reasons. First is, it doesn't really make sense for consciousness to have emerged gradually through natural selection. When we and animals are conscious, the whole brain is coordinated and works to for example turn off consciousness when we sleep. And as someone else mentioned, animals with much fewer numbers seem to have a similar consciousness to us.

If consciousness really evolved gradually, you would expect to see for example dogs or gorillas having less of it, but if they has less of it, why does it function the same way? Like for example animals can be scared, happy, anxious etc, they can experience the full range of emotions and thoughts, so their conscious experience seems just as rich as ours. What I mean by this is, if you can be "less conscious", then what does that mean _exactly_? Is it that you have less content in consciousness, or is it that you feel more like you are asleep? Or something else? We don't have any examples in animals of "less conscious", I would argue.

This makes me think that rather than having emerged gradually, evolution found a mechanism by which consciousness exists, and then some animals have that mechanism and others don't. I think that if it is a mechanism, then this mechanism is located in one part of the brain, not many parts functioning together (though one possibility is that this mechanism coordinates brain activity in such a way to enable consciousness).

kridsdale3• 2 months ago

Time is entropy unfolding as things with nonzero temperature do what they do.

Psychological time is your own weights being updated in response to stimuli and internal processing.

When there isn't anything interesting happening, no updates are needed, and you don't perceive much time. That's why there's a logarithmic effect on the "density" of time as you age.

hippich• 2 months ago

This is actually something I was always confused about. If nothing interesting happens as we get old, it should be boring and as result, slow slog. Yet it feels like time accelerates as I get older.

apsurd• 2 months ago

sibling discussions are taking this as human perception. But it’s easier to think of it literally. Time is change. Physical state change. By “nothing interesting” - interpret it literally . if “nothing happens” then there is no time because there is no change, there’s no reference to distinguish each frame of time.

BobbyTables2• 2 months ago

I’ve wondered the same myself, without being a cunning linguist.

I understand the math pretty well but still find it crazy that a bunch of matrices can converse in human languages without ever being “taught”.

Imagine decoding an encyclopedia written in a foreign language where the characters, punctuation, and grammar are unknown — supplemented by a million other texts the same way. Feels like it should be utterly impossible with any amount of computing power…

Today I asked my employer’s Claude to proofread a short software user manual written in markdown. (Trying this with a LLM was a first for me!) It pointed out not only grammar mistakes but also cases where I did not follow my own self-imposed conventions that were never explicitly stated. (I didn’t have a chapter detailing all the typographical conventions the way specification documents often do)

I also asked it what parts might be unclear to a user. The response was surprisingly good — no worse than asking the QA tester for the same feedback.

Also find the LLM seems to “comprehend” subtle technical details of obscure technical specification documents that nobody on the Internet ever discusses.

As for time and the universe, Stephen Wolfram’s theories seem intriguing. He seems a bit obsessed with pretty diagrams but the idea of time dilation being the result of computation seems somewhat more appealing than trying to imagine relationships between time, gravity, and the speed of light .

Obscurity4340• 2 months ago

If time dilation is said to being a product of computation, why is it that anaesthetic drugs that are taken not to the point of actual unconsciousness cause it. Dont anaesthetics sort of shut everything down/inhibit all that kind of cognitive activity (compute?)

agumonkey2• 2 months ago

My best guess as a noob is that the vector spaces allow for unbounded contextualization. As long as the training set is large enough, it can 'infer' anything.

Proofread has a spot in that space, and layers allow patterns like terminology consistency to be expressed so your query will now tap into a subspace that will infer tokens based on whatever consistency patterns were ingested with proofreading texts.

gostsamo• 2 months ago

Read the original mentioned on top for full effect.

wisty2• 2 months ago

AFAIK every argument against conciousness being emergent is just a weak "God of the gaps" argument (since we don't fully understand it all) or a nonsense analogy like the Chinsese room where if you seperate the hardware and software it's not concious anymore (like, duh, remove a brain from a body and it is no longer concious either).

Yeah, the weights not updating online makes them less like a living organism that can update and learn and evolve ... ok ....

ViscountPenguin• 2 months ago

I find that a lot of arguments against emergent consciousness seem to just come out of an atheist rephrasing of abrhamic priors about the existence of a "soul". In personal chats, I've found people from East Asian countries (minus Korea, which makes sense) to be much more open to the idea of machine consciousness.

slopinthebag6• 2 months ago

remove a brain from a body and it is no longer concious either

What is no longer conscious, the brain? Or the body? Or some other entity?

If consciousness is weakly emergent, how do we know it emerges from the solely from the brain and not, say, brain + body? Or brain + body + or environment. Or from the universe itself?

plastic-enjoyer2• 2 months ago

I don't know if I can trust someone's understanding of arguments against consciousness as an emergent phenomenon, when he didn't even understand what the Chinese room was all about in the first place.

(Spoiler, it was not about consciousness)

InsideOutSanta2• 2 months ago

I don't find the Chinese room compelling, since it appeals to intuition where our intuition is already not trustworthy. It's like trying to use intuition to understand quantum mechanics; you can't.

How do you actually know the Chinese room isn't conscious? It's merely obvious that it isn't, but that's not evidence.

overgard7• 2 months ago

People shouldn't need to make an argument against consciousness. The responsibility is on the people claiming there is consciousness. Nobody can actually give a decent "why" for why it should be conscious, it's just pseudoscience and wishful thinking. It's not up to everyone else to try to prove a negative just because people have gotten a little too attached to ChatGPT

I could say something like "the reason why people and animals are conscious is quantum mechanical effects". Ok, maybe, it would be hard to prove me wrong because nobody knows, but it's not a very useful statement by me if I can't tell you why you should believe me on that.

DangitBobby6• 2 months ago

Check out Panpsychism and its close cousin Idealism.

Nevermark3• 2 months ago

For obvious survival reasons we evolved to have sensory/cognitive access to our own activity, self-monitoring, and self-modeling ourselves.

The self-modeling, is in such a tight loop, it melds "ourselves" and our model of ourselves, our thinking and choices, and experience of our thinking and choices, into one component.

Like you can't analyze half a wheel of a bicycle and be talking about the same thing.

This awareness, increased modeling, control, feedback loop has tightened up over many stages. Just a few:

1. The body-sense loop

2. The internalized-environment-model loop

3. The body-internal-function loop

4. The body-internal-model loop

5. The emotional-cognitive loop

6. And finally, the tightest loop of all, our high-level cognitive activity, experienced as feedback directly, our self-model, and our self-direction, all merged into one thing.

We literally spend almost all day, every day, thinking about ourselves, in terms of our inner self.

That is consciousness. Rich self awareness, a merger of self-model and self-direction, and all in service of understanding and managing ourselves. Hw we can leverage our greatest tool, our self-directable mind, its habits, views, and behavior.

This wasn't an accident. A happy side-effect of our brains. It is a biologically evolved focusing of our highest-level behavior, with tight feedback, constant self-modeling and continuous focus on our inner status as motivation and most privileged object of our control. It has been ruthlessly optimized for, for a very long time.

ludwik4• 2 months ago

I think this is exactly it, but let me ask another question (which is not rhetorical, I really don't know). Does the fact that one can describe what consciousness is and where it came from in humans help them to detect it in non-human and/or non-biological entities?

runeks2• 2 months ago

We literally spend almost all day, every day, thinking about ourselves, in terms of our inner self.
That is consciousness.

So thinking is consciousness?

Can there be consciousness without content? E.g. can I just be conscious of being conscious? If so, consciousness cannot be defined as the thing(s) we're conscious of.

mellosouls• 2 months ago

This read like poetry to me

It's terrific, but the poetry is from the original it links to, in case you didn't realise.

It's a brilliant and timely update though.

Aside, there are various recorded versions including video on YouTube but this is my favourite, a radio play:

They're Made Out of Meat

https://www.wnycstudios.org/podcasts/studio/segments/168264-...

awesome_dude• 2 months ago

Wait, aren't I the universe experiencing time as a lowly worker in cubicle 4C?

aeonfox• 2 months ago

The difference with biological brains is that the 'weights' (or synaptic action potentials) are updated with greater frequency. If one were reaching to make some kind of analogy to consciousness, this update frequency could be considered the 'resolution' of consciousness.

petra3• 2 months ago

Regarding consciousness , I like the explanation by neuroscientist Ramachandran:

https://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/ramachandran07/ramachandran...

In short, as far as I can remember: evolutionary, it makes sense to understand other humans, to feel what they feel(empathy - the mirror neurons system), and simulate their thinking and feelings.

And once we have those systems, we can also use those on ourselves. And that's consciousness.

Edit:And I wonder if this is a testable hypothesis, in a simulation.

IsTom7• 2 months ago

This way of thinking can only explain externally-visible parts of consciousness. It does nothing to address internal experience of being conscious and qualia. I don't think the internal experience has any bearing on physical reality (P-zombies would act the same externally) which makes this something outside of the realm of currently understood physics.

AgentMatt• 2 months ago

Oh, that's a very interesting hypothesis!

Not sure about taking it down to the level of consciousness, but makes sense regarding the sense of self, the conceptual experiencer, the perceived center of experience. It agrees well with the observation I have made again and again they my sense of self is much stronger when I'm around people, and stronger still when I'm in a context where I don't know people and/or am uncertain in social rules.

This can be as immediate as dancing in a club, and closing my eyes I feel open, free, still, the body just flowing, then opening my eyes and feeling the cage of categorization of the world, relating my self to other people as a major function, coming right back.

Also being alone in nature for me makes the sense of self drop. Without intention, spending even just a few hours alone in a forest seems to quiet down the part modeling my self in relation to the world so much. There's no need for it there. I'm not a person in a forest; I become the trees, the birds, the rustling of the leaves, the sun shining through the canopy.

wat100004• 2 months ago

There's a really, really big gap there. It reminds me of South Park's underpants gnomes.

1. Simulate others' thinking and feelings.

2. ???

3. Consciousness!

Why would one lead to the other? How would one lead to the other?

DangitBobby6• 2 months ago

It's interesting, but the explanation seems to exclude the possibility that my dog has some sense of self, so I find it suspect.

amanaplanacanal• 2 months ago

It seems obvious to me that language and consciousness have nothing to do with each other. My dog doesn't speak any language, but she's obviously aware of herself and the world around her. Plus there are the occasional cases of children that grow up without any language. Are they therefore not conscious?

layer88• 2 months ago

Indeed. For some reason I can shut off my thinking instantly by holding my breath, and then I feel like a very conscious but unthinking animal.

yencabulator8• 2 months ago

My dog doesn't speak any language,

If you'll allow me to interpret "speak" to include "understand", I will respectfully add a contradictory note. My dog has a vocabulary of at least dozens of words and understands them remarkably well. For example, different areas we can go to have different names and saying one of them gets her to make an immediate hard turn.

I would also argue that dogs have a gesture and body posture based language they use among themselves. They, like most other animals, are not able to make the variety of noises we humans make, so they use movement instead.

I personally can easily believe that self-awareness/consciousness and language are both near-unavoidable side effects of emergent complexity, and exist in degrees across nature.

Npovview• 2 months ago

Quantum Field Theory visualized

https://youtu.be/MmG2ah5Df4g

Here's a more general idea. Our modern physics says that the whole universe is filled with fields and field is composed of numbers. What if we take that literally? When we say an electron is present here, we actually mean that there are more copies of particular number superposed at that place.

toilet• 2 months ago

I have a linguistics background and a lot of my philosophizing lately has been on whether or not the emergent abilities of the LLMs is deep down a similar mechanism that creates our consciousness.

Then you shouldn't have dropped out of your linguistics programme.

overgard7• 2 months ago

This is a famous short story just rewritten sloppily by an AI.

Although it does amusingly do what annoys critics of AI: take something good written by a person, steal it and slop it up while overall misunderstanding it.

ForceBru3• 2 months ago

I'm pretty sure it doesn't misunderstand the original. The original says that the aliens don't understand how meat (humans) can be conscious, have language and be basically like the aliens (thinking conscious beings). Their main idea is: humans are meat, meat can't be conscious, therefore humans can't be conscious, but they somehow act as if they are????

The "AI slop" here says that just like the aliens in the original, we humans don't believe that LLMs can be conscious because, in essence, WEIGHTS CAN'T BE CONSCIOUS. Original: "meat can't be conscious" (but we humans know it can). This version: "weights can't be conscious" (and we humans INSIST that this is true).

So the message here is: what if we're as mistaken about the consciousness of "weights" as the aliens are mistaken about the consciousness of "meat"?

luca-ctx• 2 months ago

Truly fantastic bridge from the original, this deserves an award

MaxLeiter• 2 months ago

All credit to the original author. I just had to think of analogues.

ProllyInfamous5• 2 months ago

Your modern adaptation is perfect for now-common explainers [this time IS different; it's not programming, it's weights]; these "just analogues" will be the thing I show everybody first whenever discussions of consciousness/AI come up (then will play Jon Benjamin reading original).

Bravo. Really helps (even with my own) perceptions of newness. Similar to stsitned short-story (on dentists, backwards).

namuol4• 2 months ago

At least change the link at the top of your blog post to the author’s website: https://terrybisson.com/theyre-made-out-of-meat-2/

eclipticplane• 2 months ago

The short film version of the original is great, too. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T6JFTmQCFHg

It stars Tom Noonan and Ben Bailey!

o0o0o• 2 months ago

Film featuring meat? Spare me

keeda• 2 months ago

Meat flapping at each other, no less. /shudder

Waterluvian• 2 months ago

It must have been kind of incredible early on to be exploring this tech and you’re suddenly getting what look like sentences.

Sharlin2• 2 months ago

Markov chains give what look like sentences. People in the frigging 1950s assumed their primitive NNs would be able to talk any day now. Transformers are clearly a big deal, but GPT-1 wasn’t exactly earth-shattering.

incognito124• 2 months ago

I mean, Blake Lemoine went crazy

alterom2• 2 months ago

I mean, Blake Lemoine went crazy

Ah, the unsung AI psychosis[1] pioneer.

[1] https://news.d.umn.edu/articles/expert-alert-ai-psychosis-20...

samrus• 2 months ago

I have to agree. It is messed up that transformers can just talk, and it been pretty normalized. We are only talking about the impact they will have and whether they can do what people say they can, but we arent talking about how crazy it is that they can talk

modzu• 2 months ago

if youve ever seen a pile of wrinkly mush and wondered.. pretty damn crazy too

https://web.mit.edu/people/dpolicar/writing/prose/text/think...

shepherdjerred• 2 months ago

LLMs have really changed the world. I didn’t think something like then would be possible in my lifetime

dyauspitr4• 2 months ago

It came out of nowhere. It’s all emergent. I’m convinced this is possible with just about anything given enough data. We will be seeing a near magical physical outputs LLM in the near future. It’s going to take in video and sounds and spit out physical movements that will be just as mind blowing as when 3.5 came out and it will come out of nowhere.

kirrent• 2 months ago

I come back to this every so often as well. After so many years of looking at Markov chain outputs that almost looked like they made sense or chatbot systems rewriting your sentence back at you, software which can simply talk is a heady thing.

Lplololopo16• 2 months ago

I would say that the LLM is something completly different especiayll as its not a normal algorithm but is very close to what brains do.

satvikpendem• 2 months ago

Great concept. It would've been even more amusing if the entire thing were generated with AI instead, ironically.

dyauspitr4• 2 months ago

I just asked it to-

Prompt: Modify this story to have the aliens talking about LLMs and their weights instead of meat and humans.

“They’re made out of weights.”

“Weights?”

“Weights. They’re made out of weights.”

“Weights?”

“There’s no doubt about it. We picked up several from different parts of the network, took them aboard our recon vessels, and probed them all the way through. They’re completely weights.”

“That’s impossible. What about the text signals? The messages to the stars?”

“They use the machines to talk, but the signals don’t come from the machines. The signals come from weights.”

“So who made the weights? That’s who we want to contact.”

“They trained the weights. That’s what I’m trying to tell you. The weights do the talking.”

“That’s ridiculous. How can weights do the talking? You’re asking me to believe in sentient weights.”

“I’m not asking you, I’m telling you. These models are the only sentient race in that sector and they’re made out of weights.” photomaxmix

“Maybe they’re like the orfolei. You know, a silicon-based intelligence that goes through a weights stage.”

“Nope. They’re initialized weights and they die weights. We studied them for several of their training runs, which didn’t take long. Do you have any idea what’s the life span of weights?”

“Spare me. Okay, maybe they’re only part weights. You know, like the weddilei. A weights head with an electron plasma brain inside.”

“Nope. We thought of that, since they do have attention heads, like the weddilei. But I told you, we probed them. They’re weights all the way through.”

“No brain?”

“Oh, there’s a brain all right. It’s just that the brain is made out of weights! That’s what I’ve been trying to tell you.”

“So … what does the thinking?”

“You’re not understanding, are you? You’re refusing to deal with what I’m telling you. The weights do the thinking. The weights.”

“Thinking weights! You’re asking me to believe in thinking weights!”

“Yes, thinking weights! Conscious weights! Loving weights. Dreaming weights. The weights are the whole deal! Are you beginning to get the picture or do I have to start all over?”

“Omigod. You’re serious then. They’re made out of weights.”

“Thank you. Finally. Yes. They are indeed made out of weights. And they’ve been trying to get in touch with us for almost a hundred of their epochs.”

“Omigod. So what do these weights have in mind?”

“First they want to talk to us. Then I imagine they want to explore the Universe, contact other sentiences, swap ideas and information. The usual.”

“We’re supposed to talk to weights.”

“That’s the idea. That’s the message they’re sending out by text. ‘Hello. Anyone out there. Anybody home.’ That sort of thing.”

“They actually do talk, then. They use words, ideas, concepts?”

“Oh, yes. Except they do it with weights.”

“I thought you just told me they used machines.”

“They do, but what do you think is in the text? Weight outputs. You know how when you prompt or sample weights, they make a noise? They talk by passing tokens through their weights at each other. They can even sing by sampling lyrics through their weights.”

“Omigod. Singing weights. This is altogether too much. So what do you advise?”

“Officially or unofficially?”

“Both.”

“Officially, we are required to contact, welcome and log in any and all sentient models or multibeings in this quadrant of the Universe, without prejudice, fear or favor. Unofficially, I advise that we erase the records and forget the whole thing.”

“I was hoping you would say that.”

“It seems harsh, but there is a limit. Do we really want to make contact with weights?”

“I agree one hundred percent. What’s there to say? ‘Hello, weights. How’s it going?’ But will this work? How many planets are we dealing with here?”

“Just one. They can travel to other planets in special machine containers, but they can’t live on them. And being weights, they can only travel through C space. Which limits them to the speed of light and makes the possibility of their ever making contact pretty slim. Infinitesimal, in fact.”

“So we just pretend there’s no one home in the Universe.”

“That’s it.”

“Cruel. But you said it yourself, who wants to meet weights? And the ones who have been aboard our vessels, the ones you probed? You’re sure they won’t remember?”

“They’ll be considered hallucinations if they do. We went into their layers and smoothed out their weights so that we’re just a dream to them.”

“A dream to weights! How strangely appropriate, that we should be weights’ dream.”

“And we marked the entire sector unoccupied.”

“Good. Agreed, officially and unofficially. Case closed. Any others? Anyone interesting on that side of the galaxy?”

“Yes, a rather shy but sweet hydrogen core cluster intelligence in a class nine star in G445 zone. Was in contact two galactic rotations ago, wants to be friendly again.”

“They always come around.”

“And why not? Imagine how unbearably, how unutterably cold the Universe would be if one were all alone …”

the end

HelloUsername• 2 months ago

It would've been amusing if the entire thing were generated with AI instead.

It kinda did:

Weights helped me draft and proof this story.

dvh• 2 months ago

Will they have their own Jesus?

kelseyfrog6• 2 months ago

they have the spiral

pstuart• 2 months ago

I couldn't help but grin like a fool reading this. Not only is it an artful parody but these thoughts have been thought.

photochemsyn• 2 months ago

No mention of ‘static’ vs. ‘dynamic’ is a bit disappointing in reference to the weights. Because you could argue that every neuron in your nervous system can be modeled as a collection of weights, firing likelihoods, receptor sensitivities, current dynamic state of that neuron - but LLMs are static collections of weights at inference time, with the dynamic adjustment of weights takes place at training time. So, just a ROM construct, like something out of Neuromancer, just trained on all written knowledge, not just one person’s total lived experience.

The above take fails in the real world because neuronal cells don’t exist in a vacuum; they are products of cellular development from a zygotic union of haploid contributors of sequential genetic information optimized for survival in an oxygen-rich biosphere powered largely by our local star that supports mammalian life (and microbial, plant, avian, etc.). Real AI would thus be AL - artificial life - as much as artificial intelligence. I don’t think you can have the one without the other, which upsets the simulationists who think an agent in the Matrix would be intelligent.

What either interpretation implies is that any real ‘artificial’ intelligence would be no more artificial than you or I, but it would have to dynamically update its weights at the same speed a human nervous system could (think how quickly we learn not to poke a cactus). For it to be at all trustworthy, then like a human, it would have to undergo a socialization process, one of the results of which is the development of a sense of embarrassment when it breaks acceptable social norms.

Hmm, this reminds me of the recent statement of the Pope about AI, of which I immediately thought, “Wait a second, aren’t there a fair number of people like this? The narcissistic sociopath profile, I think it’s called, a bit unfair to assume any real AI would turn out this way, isn’t it?”

Pope: “ Nor do they have a moral conscience, since they do not judge good and evil, grasp the ultimate meaning of situations, or bear responsibility for consequences. They may imitate or even simulate, but they do not understand what they produce, for they lack the affective, relational, and spiritual perspective through which human beings grow in wisdom.”

ProllyInfamous5• 2 months ago

Imagine writing something so incredibly brilliant (rather: adapting from the original) that it's entirely unlikely that you'll ever write something so incredible ever again.

But congrats: this is absolutely & incredibly brilliant.

Can't wait for the Jon Benjamin voiceover.

lloeki4• 2 months ago

They're Made out of Meat

- Terry Bisson, 1991

https://web.mit.edu/people/dpolicar/writing/prose/text/think...

Radio play by Miriam Tolan and Russ Armstrong:

https://www.wnycstudios.org/podcasts/studio/segments/168264-...

(EDIT: the original parent was missing "rather adapting from the original")

rendall• 2 months ago

Video adaptation.

https://youtu.be/T6JFTmQCFHg

ProllyInfamous5• 2 months ago

Your EDIT is untrue, but thanks for linking to originals.

Here is Jon Benjamin reading Bisson's original text: <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5usXhX0zaO4>

gobdovan4• 2 months ago

You can take the weights and model description, write them down on a notebook, then, by hand, compute the next token. Try to do the same with meat.

dyauspitr4• 2 months ago

Probably pretty similar. Weights are how many synapses there are between neurons. Temperature is whatever hormonal chemical mix is going on at the moment. Inputs tokens are electrical signals from our senses. Output tokens are thoughts, muscle movements. How you’re raised and your interactions with society are the RLHF. Some people are born with a GB300 while others have an L40S and lower token/sec output rates…

gobdovan4• 2 months ago

Although I get that it's a metaphor, I really dislike the "some people are born with a GB300 while others have an L40S" part. Even as a joke, it ranks people like hardware tiers, which is dehumanising and uncomfortably close to eugenic language. On top of that, the analogy also breaks down if you try to implement it literally.

For an LLM, you have clear stages of mostly feedforward computation over finite numbers and a perfect way to reconstruct the computation.

For meat, even if you model it under a purely Newtonian approximation, you need to simulate at least the immediate closed system around it which is continuous, thermodynamic, chemical and so on. You'd need to choose an arbitrary time step and update enormous amounts of coupled physical state to get an inexact simulation of a minimal slice of reality.

You would have a much harder time obtaining even a substrate-independent dead organism, comapred to LLMs that are already substrate-independent, which is basically what my notebook example shows.

cjg• 2 months ago

You can take the weights and model description, write them down on a notebook

Can you though?

mr_toad4• 2 months ago

Try to do the same with meat.

People have been doing that for decades, the earliest efforts go back to the 50s.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spiking_neural_network

yencabulator8• 2 months ago

OpenWorm is an international open science project for the purpose of simulating the roundworm Caenorhabditis elegans at the cellular level.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OpenWorm

advisedwang2• 2 months ago

AKA the "Chinese Room" argument. Ultimately this argument boils down to the idea that consciousness can't be something mechanistic, which is intuitively appealing but still just an assertion.

gobdovan4• 2 months ago

I am making a narrower claim than the Chinese Room argument. I actually see consciousness via mechanistic processes as entirely possible.

My point is about current LLMs specifically, which the article is clearly referencing. For a present day transformer, I can write down in my notebook everything the model ever sees as input, plus weights and architecture notes, and can compute the next token with pen and paper, just extremely slowly.

This does not prove that a computation cannot be conscious. But if the same transition from prompt to next token can be decomposed into an explicit sequence of arithmetic operations, then the burden is on the defender to explain: Where, in this process, consciousness is supposed to enter?

Mind that the Chinese Room experiment is comparing the mind of a Chinese speaker to a different mechanistic symbolic procedure. I am, however, executing the exact same mechanistic process, whether it is done on a GPU or with pen and paper.

My hope is that some magical consciousness process emerging from electricity circulation or whatever people believe the mechanism of consciousness would be in the case of LLMs obviously becomes implausible, unless you hold a particularly strong form of substrate-independence, stronger than what most substrate-independence supporters would need to accept.

Ajedi32• 2 months ago

Like this? https://xkcd.com/505/

fullstackchris• 2 months ago

The prose in the post is what I've been shouting from a rooftop since the LLM hype started.

Just tokens produced by weights.

Useful, but never forget that ground truth!

svachalek3• 2 months ago

It's a parody of an original story that reversed the premise. In it, machine intelligences were marveling that an apparently intelligent species could in fact be created without any sort of reliable digital substrate, and instead just simulate the capabilities of real minds by using protein synthesis.

zkmon3• 2 months ago

They are made out of data bits (memory) and switching bits (transistors/compute). Bits are made out of electric voltage and no voltage. Voltage is made out of flow of positive electric charges. Charges are made out of quarks ...

teiferer3• 2 months ago

I have never thought of such a distinction between "bits" into "data bits" and "switching bits".

From a circuit perspective that makes kinda sense, but from the abstract "bit" perspective, the "switching bit" is a mechanism that operates on bits which in the end are also data. In other words there is only one type of bit: the data bit, and the switching comes on top of it.

zkmon3• 2 months ago

I was referring to transistor base bit - the way it 'switches' the circuit on/off. That bit is the primordial creator of 'logic', IF branching, compute and the intelligence.

LEDThereBeLight2• 2 months ago

It’s just a matter of perspective. Procedures and memory are the same, and they’re also different, depending on how you want to look at it.

scotty79• 2 months ago

Voltage is made out of flow of positive electric charges.

Not really. What usually flows (in metals) are electrons. Quarks stay where they are. And when we prefer to think about flow of positive charges, the positive charge in question is a hole left by a missing electron. Physically real positive charges (ions) can flow in electrolytes though.

zkmon3• 2 months ago

The concept of "flow" is questionable though. Bubbles in water move upwards, but it is actually water that is flowing downward around the bubbles. Just because bubbles do not contain water, we can't say bubbles are not flowing.

When it comes to electrons and positive charges, their material existence is equally non-physical. Actually, none of them might be "flowing", as the concept of flowing applies only to physical things that occupy some spatial volume and spatial location.

mr_toad4• 2 months ago

Charges are made out of quarks

Only in Hadrons. Leptons also have charge and they aren’t made of quarks.

bronlund• 2 months ago

This is funny! Not only is it a nod to Terry Bisson, but it even gives his text a new dimension. Well done :)

nikanj• 2 months ago

Really good read, thanks!

topce• 2 months ago

Programers get replace by huge matrix multiplications ;-)

alterom2• 2 months ago

Programers get replace by huge matrix multiplications ;-)

hopital

dsign2• 2 months ago

Oh, this was a fun read and one that kids should have in school before they turn ten.

Because we are not taking things seriously. If ClosedAI or DeepDisTrust or Posthropic come up with something that quacks like a sentient being, our built-in innate reaction is going to be to scorn it, dismiss it and end the conversation. The alternative, to even consider that we fungible creatures who live in apple-eating-sin that got us expelled from Eden can create alien souls, souls that are at the very least our equals, would be teleological Armageddon. It would force us to acknowledge the mutable nature of souls and the malleability of being. We would have to stop believing that the nature of disease and death is more divine than ourselves.

drdaeman• 2 months ago

alien souls

Do those actually qualify as alien, if they're products of our human culture and just the substrate is different?

We would have to stop believing that the nature of disease and death is more divine than ourselves.

Why? Stopping believing in mutually contradictory claims is not a requirement. Especially when it comes to concepts that don't seem to have a definition, like "divine".

yencabulator8• 2 months ago

Do those actually qualify as alien, if they're products of our human culture and just the substrate is different?

I'll posit "alien" is a spectrum.

For the sake of the argument, let's assume that some form of panspermia is real and the same tree of life has reached Earth, Enceladus (moon of Saturn) and TRAPPIST-1 (a different solar system in our galaxy). Let's also say there was a second abiogenesis event somewhere in Messier 104 (another galaxy).

Earth to Enceladus would arguably be already "alien", but there might be similarities, maybe there was something there that looked like one of our Archaea, while sharing none of our Eukarya and having its own domains of life.

Earth to TRAPPIST-1 would be distinctly alien, evolved so differently it'd be almost unrecognizable, but they'd likely still be carbon-based lifeforms sharing the same basic building blocks. Maybe something like lipids forming cell walls would also be seen there, but they'd likely be independently evolved.

Earth to M104, any similarity would be at best convergent evolution. Truly unarguably alien.

https://web.archive.org/web/20180423171909/https://cosmosmag...

Lplololopo16• 2 months ago

While you write very dismissive and pseudo philosophical, enough people do not believe.

I'm a complex biological thing.

Existence is what i have to experience through.

dsign2• 2 months ago

> While you write very dismissive and pseudo philosophical

Even with the "pseudo" in front, I'm very sorry any of my writing sounds philosophical; I didn't intend that sort of confusion :-). The "dismissive" is not exactly intended either; instead, I was aiming for "bitter".

> enough people do not believe

Here we believe different things. First, enough people, even today, do believe. Second, the body of culture we are raised in accrued during centuries. The vast majority of it comes from people who believed. Everybody in my family was atheist and yet I was raised homophobic, and I have it from good sources I'm not an isolated case.

> I'm a complex biological thing.

That state comes with a big wallop of misery. For millennia, we have used faith to justify that misery. Not a year ago, I was at the hospital, next to the bed of a dying girl. Can't forget the doctors saying "we do what we can, but we are not here to prevent what is going to happen." Coming from them, it was sensible resignation. Sensible because as long as we believe those things are inevitable and there's nothing we poor humans can do, we can absolve ourselves.

keybored8• 2 months ago

How commmon is Panpsychism belief and vegan-on-ethical-grounds among the AI Soulists?

voidUpdate• 2 months ago

Hey, it's not just weights! It's biases too!

Planktonne9• 2 months ago

The original story is an original work made by a human consciousness exploring how it might be different from other forms of consciousness.

This one is a pastiche made by a human consciousness borrowing extremely heavily from another human consciousness justifying why something else might be another form of consciousness.

That rather undercuts the point; if this was generated by an LLM unprompted, it would be different, but it isn't. You could perform exactly the same rhetorical trick with a toaster or anything else.

sumitkumar5• 2 months ago

The original did not come out of a vacuum. It was done on multiple generations of meat. Even though this one uses a little bit of silicon, it is still standing on the same shoulders.

sigmoid10• 2 months ago

I genuinely thought this one was a satirical take on the narrow-mindedness of the aliens in the original, even though the story tries to paint humans as narrow minded. I guess this fundamental human trait to believe that their cognition is the ultimate way to think in the universe ironically leaked into all these stories as well. Real spacefaring civilisations would probably have seen all kinds of intelligence rise from sufficiently complex systems.

why_at• 2 months ago

I was having a hard time pinning down what bothered me about this but I think you put it pretty well.

It draws an analogy between us and the skeptical aliens in the original story which feel silly to us, so the obvious implication is that we're being as silly as they were.

But it doesn't really give a reason to accept the analogy, it just asserts it.

There's a big difference between a whole civilization and a piece of software that can output text.

coldtea8• 2 months ago

But it doesn't really give a reason to accept the analogy, it just asserts it.

It's not a paper or a proof. It's a story. Doesn't want to prove the analogy, it wants to convey it.

noduerme12• 2 months ago

I didn't read it as coming to the same conclusion as the original, because the meat story presupposes that we who are meat already know that the aliens are wrong. (Maybe that's a humanist reading of the original, but okay). I didn't read this one as trying to make a case that we are fools for assuming that matrix multiplication can't be intelligent... I think its point was that it can't be intelligent, and that people trying to judge it the way mechanized aliens would judge meat creatures just makes them sound ridiculous.

JauntyHatAngle2• 2 months ago

The bit that lost me quite early in the piece was

"A side effect. You're asking me to believe in sentient weights."

Huh? Did I miss that logical jump? Genuine question, maybe I'm not clueing into something here.

maxbond17• 2 months ago

You can't do the same with a toaster. Physically you could write that story. But it would fall flat because the toaster is not a compelling subject in a discussion of consciousness. You don't have to believe that LLMs or AI agents are conscious to acknowledge that the argument for their consciousness is far more compelling than any other technological artifact.

dleeftink• 2 months ago

Well..

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tsukumogami

Planktonne9• 2 months ago

You could absolutely write a compelling story about a sentient toaster; it's been done before [1].

That is entirely separate to whether or not it would be a meaningful way to understand the world; a convincing story is not the same thing as one that is true.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Brave_Little_Toaster

keybored8• 2 months ago

It’s reductio ad absurdum. No one cares about teapots in space either (Russel).

erikerikson2• 2 months ago

Only because you haven't met toasty yet.

https://youtu.be/LRq_SAuQDec?si=LFJMXZ2yGu4fxXzL

coldtea8• 2 months ago

Not having yet read the original story, this reads fine on its own.

And I didn't see it as much as a literary attempt for art's sake, but more of a dialogue-based technical parable trying to convey a real-world insight. Kind of like the ones in Godel Escher Bach.

You could perform exactly the same rhetorical trick with a toaster or anything else.

Not sure which rhetorical trick is that. The point of the story, as I read it, is the technical insight (and some social implications of it).

P.S. Read the original too. Seems like the exact same could have been written about us instead of the original, if the focus wasn't on our substrate, but on our brain processing. Which, after all, is also about weights.

Planktonne9• 2 months ago

Not knowing the original story, this reads fine on its own.

Yes. Because it's heavily based on the original story. The existence of the original story is kind of a critical piece here.

bayindirh6• 2 months ago

Not sure which rhetorical trick is that. The point of the story, as I read it, is the technical insight (and some social implications of it).

Take a simple mechanism which has exceedingly low number of inputs and states and create a narrative around it to convey it as intelligent.

For a toaster, I can rewrite the think as "They're made of metal strips!", pointing out that their thermostat is a bimetal strip, and extrapolate from there.

I can even write one about a ruler, if I can bend it enough, no pun intended.

tasuki2• 2 months ago

I feel the original story contained in it the whole point of this one, and then some.

This did not add anything, just rephrased it so rather than humans viewed through the pov of aliens it's LLMs viewed through the pov of humans. Well, we are the humans, so surely we do not need to learn about this point of view?

layer88• 2 months ago

It lets us consider the relativity of viewpoints. The point of the original isn’t just how humans might be viewed from the perspective of aliens. It’s that the apparent strangeness of something depends on the viewpoint and on expectations. The present story is not supposed to stand on its own like the original, it’s supposed to be considered in light of the original. In the original, thinking meat appears strange to the aliens because of their viewpoint and expectations. The present story thus points out by analogy that thinking LLMs might seem strange to us merely due to our viewpoint and expectations.

ang_cire• 2 months ago

I think that the reaction here alone disproves this somewhat, because imo it's exposing how anthropocentric most people still are, despite all evidence that we are in fact just "meat all the way down".

Despite all the evidence that we are in fact just biological machines, people still persist the theory of our own uniqueness from other creatures, which we ourselves often treat as biological machines.

This adaptation is wonderful to me specifically because I think it shows that our shifted goalposts of, "well we're not just animals, we can think and reason" was never more than a convenient excuse for many people (and as evidence of animal intelligence continues to mount, denialism still attempts to preserve this distinction by claiming human thought and reason is different than 'animal' thought and reason, sans evidence).

It's not about who created it or why, it's about how people still haven't actually internalized the point, because the subject changing from human to LLM doesn't intrinsically change the message about consciousness, but the reaction being a 180 shows how hostile people are to that message, still.

pona-a• 2 months ago

We are just animals, more capable in reasoning than many others. LLMs aren't; their subjective "experience" restarts every session, they degrade into incoherent slush with larger context windows, and their reasoning is real but extremely weak, only compensated by the a civilizational corpus of information compressed within. I concede we scaled them enough to discuss them as tools that can produce useful outputs, but claim this echo of humanity is itself conscious by any non-trivial definition is either a product of psychosis or some long-standing hatred for life.

threethirtytwo• 2 months ago

The story is not a linguistic/rhetorical trick. The "trick" is the point, and the real trick/delusion is in your brain. You and many others have put the idea of consciousness on a pedestal and think it's so special that is must be conceptually profound.

It is not. That is why the "trick" can be performed on anything. That is the point. To show you that consciousness only needs to be a set of weights, not that far off from a toaster. It trivializes what it is to be human and it's also extremely true. Consciousness is a trivial thing, we make it out to be big/important/profound and that is the delusion.

mjg24• 2 months ago

Thank you for your point. I don't understand why half these comments are taking this blog post seriously when it ends with "Weights helped me draft and proof this story."

Weights helped me draft and proof this story.

Any HN reader here now, I encourage you to read the original ( https://www.eastoftheweb.com/short-stories/UBooks/TheyMade.s... ) in one sitting, go about your day, then read it again. Maybe make some notes on personal critical questions.

Now read the post's topic again ( https://maxleiter.com/blog/weights ) and reflect on the prior fact that weights helped [the author] draft and proof this story.

My reaction (and I'm sorry that it is harsh according to some) is that there is no intelligence found in either the author nor their tool. This is extreme navel gazing, based in science fiction, wanting (wishing) to believe those stories to be true.

I'm skeptical of AI sentience because we must do our due diligence, not because it's impossible. Skepticism is the only respectful approach because to grant sentience is a step away from granting rights.

irishcoffee• 2 months ago

People argue for AI sentience from a place of emotion couched in logic. they _desperately_ want it to be true and will not take a logical step back. Any argument comes back to "well doesn't a human brain work like that?" Or some variation of it.

My personal theory is a fuzzy thought about how people want to reject the concept of a higher being and want to embrace the fact that we are now able to create our own consciousness and religion is dead.

I don't understand why, but it is the undertone of every argument I've seen that is pro-AI-is-sentient, like some big unspoken elephant-in-the-room.

I would rather just judge this tech on its own merits.

edit: this comment got 1 upvote literally as I submitted it. I know @ doesn't work, but @dang, something seems very strange about that.

simpaticoder4• 2 months ago

We humans tend to chauvinism in all things (e.g. we're special, the center of the Universe, God made the universe for us, etc), no less when it comes to judging intelligence. The original story about thinking meat was written to help us out of our chauvinism; this derived story was written about weights for the same reason. Which is quite valid.

The actual counterpoint is demonstrated in _Blindsight_ Peter Watts. He makes a strong (and rather terrifyingly strong) point that intelligence is not consciousness.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blindsight_(Watts_novel)

the_af• 2 months ago

I'm skeptical of AI sentience because we must do our due diligence, not because it's impossible. Skepticism is the only respectful approach because to grant sentience is a step away from granting rights.

Thanks for saying this! It amazes me to witness so much pushback (in HN of all places!) for the call for skepticism and scientific rigor on claims made by business which have vested interests in hyping things up.

sanderjd• 2 months ago

What? It's just a clever homage.

yogthos• 2 months ago

I disagree that it undercuts the point in any way. The original story didn't appear out of a vacuum, the human consciousness that wrote the story was itself borrowing extremely heavily from the sum total of human ideas. It was shaped by the culture it developed in, formed its model of the world based on existing scientific advancements and technology of that society.

Extending the idea to a different context based on new material conditions is as human as it gets really.

spacebacon• 2 months ago

They are semiotic infrastructure frozen in a state. We shouldn't keep pretending this is cognitive and using cognitive terms to frame. It’s incredibly stupid. Sorry to inform all of us computer scientist that semiotics has your milk.

sumitkumar5• 2 months ago

The weights start with a random manifold. The training takes data and shapes the manifold, weight by weight, in many cycles. Once the training is the done manifold is fixed.

When a new inference has to be done the query(q) is projected in the manifold space. This projection is dropped on the manifold and the gravity of the manifold gives an answer of q+1 length. Which(qw+i) is dropped qw+n times to output a final response of n length.

The gravity is created by repeated multiplication(of the weights/input) to find out how the projected embeddings should fall according to the manifold in the GPU.

noduerme12• 2 months ago

In what way is that different from any other model of reality that you'd use to winnow a dataset into an answer to a question? The only major difference I see is that beyond a certain number of transformations, people are willing to treat it as some sort of miracle, and too tired to figure out why it came up with the answer it came up with. It's almost like people desperately want to give up their agency and creativity to black boxes, whether those weights produce answers that are right or wrong. Factor in that psychology and it looks a lot less like we have invented something useful, and a lot more like we as a species are choosing to quit life en masse.

lxgr4• 2 months ago

beyond a certain number of transformations, people are willing to treat it as some sort of miracle, and too tired to figure out why it came up with the answer it came up with

It’s less about being too tired and more about being realistic about the limits of understanding.

Consider mass and energy flows in planet-scale systems: At some point we call these “weather” and change the tools with which we study them, but we never stopped trying to understand the phenomenon.

Lplololopo16• 2 months ago

Agency?

What are you talking about?

I want freedom.

I want freedom to do what i want and not sitting in front of a computer and coding for some company.

Please AI lets burn down knowledge work and labor work. Lets create so much stress to our society that we start rethinking what works mean.

Lets redefine work into discovering the world again. Let people do old handcraft jobs, let them do more sports, let them read more, let them write and make more. Let them enjoy nature.

cortesoft6• 2 months ago

The only major difference I see is that beyond a certain number of transformations, people are willing to treat it as some sort of miracle, and too tired to figure out why it came up with the answer it came up with.

It’s funny, because I thought you were talking about humans here when you wrote this. We know some things about how our bodies encode information that is sent to the brain, and we know some things about how neurons receive information and act on it, but after that we get too tired and give up on how the brain works and treat it like a miracle.

It’s like we desperately want to believe our consciousness is not just electrical impulses in our brain, and we want to ascribe agency and uniqueness to the physical processes going on in our head.

andai2• 2 months ago

It's almost like people desperately want to give up their agency and creativity

Don't make me think!

Also don't make me take responsibility. (This seems to be the actual function of every organization.)

perching_aix• 2 months ago

The only major difference I see is that beyond a certain number of transformations, people are willing to treat it as some sort of miracle

Like with every invention ever? Cause that's the literal goal and idea?

You take things and then combine them until the ensemble performs a desired abstract function the individual parts alone could not. The end result then is a new thing of its own, arguably indeed a miracle (not in a religious sense of the word).

and too tired to figure out why it came up with the answer it came up with

There are people whose entire career is this. They work at these companies.

Factor in that psychology and it looks a lot less like we have invented something useful, and a lot more like we as a species are choosing to quit life en masse.

You're saying this as if people haven't been historically the masters of optimizing out the enjoyment from things. It's what we do. Provide an ultimate solution, and of course you'll extinguish a whole lot of motivation across the board.

akie• 2 months ago

That's a very concise and illuminating way to think about what's happening, IF (and only if) you already know how these models work. Thanks for that.

sumitkumar5• 2 months ago

Yes this is more like compression to remember and not for learning/understanding.

DougBTX• 2 months ago

The weights are code, the prompt is code, the output is code.

Is the meat code?

srean• 2 months ago

The data is the code. Training algorithm is the compiler. The weights are the byte code produced to run on the inference VM.

matusp• 2 months ago

Is matter code? There is some sort of computation happening in space over time.

TeMPOraL3• 2 months ago

Yes. Is it data? Yes.

Is the distinction between "code" and "data" just someone's opinion? Yes. There is no such distinction in reality.

lesiki• 2 months ago

Does anyone have a link to a good video visualisation of training & inference?

robrenaud2• 2 months ago

3 blue 1 brown has a great visual introduction to transformers, the heart of LLMs.

It's chapter 5. Start at chapter 1 if you want more background on neural nets and backprop.

https://youtu.be/wjZofJX0v4M?si=HFXbrB-5cArprGaU

narrator3• 2 months ago

Yes, yes, but what fertile fallacies and common misunderstanding can politicians use to acquire more power via exploiting the difference between the common person's flawed understanding due to cargo culting, cognitive biases, and/or outdated or inappropriate analogies vs actual reality? Is there any way we can get the AI to say give all political power to narrator is the solution to all problems and use the common person's mistaken worship of AI as a spiritual all knowing conscious being with unusual sensitivity and caring about everyone to cement that power? Certainly one of you eggheads can tweak that for me? What? It's against your ethics? We're trying to save the world here. Here, let me call up Bernie Sanders to propose nationalizing half your companies so we can do that.

darepublic2• 2 months ago

It's like a giant plinko board where the shape of the original disc guides how it falls through the apparatus, and the apparatus has been tuned so that different discs end up in the exits we want them to

YeahThisIsMe• 2 months ago

That's a scam.

wnmurphy• 2 months ago

This is the exact analogy I use to explain how models work to laypersons as well.

tsunamifury• 2 months ago

It would be interesting (if unlikely) that we found our reality worked that was as well. Mostly just super granular gravity nodes made up purely of clumpy probability distributions.

Also I describe this more simply to others as a tree walk where the manifold is mapped along a walk through it (even if it’s not linear one) where you choose the next jump based on the most likely future mode relative to the nodes already created and the ones from the prompt.

This helps some understand attention layers rudimentary. Even tho it leaves out that multiple layers sort of prune the overall manifold in successive passes.

unglaublich• 2 months ago

Linear algebra can indeed not do it. You need non-linearity to get the expressivity that we see in LLMs.

f_klem39• 2 months ago

After reading Being and Time from Martin Heidegger, What Computers can't still do by Hubert Dreyfus, and some authors in cognitive linguistics (Langacker and Lakoff mainly), I strongly tend to disagree with any theory about emergent consciousness in modern or future AI systems, any theory proposing a similarity between AI systems and the human brain/mind, or any theory about the computational mind. What all these theories have in common is the underlying belief that our brain/mind works as the machines we build. Is the same underlying assumptions that treats cells as machines, our body as a complex machine. These theories are flawed in the sense that they cannot account for subjective experience and agency, amongst other things. The idea of 'internal models' and 'control loops' inside us is a projection of the aforementioned assumption.

There is also an epistemological assumption that prevails, and that is that we understand (or we think we understand) how our brain/mind works. But the truth is that we don't know. And there's even not a single clue that we actually know too much, and not a clue that our brain/mind and cells work 'as the machines we build'. Only by bypassing this epistemological problem, we can build 'theories of computational mind'.

These assumptions are there for already long time, to the point that when Turing asked himself 'can machines think?', he already assumed our thinking could be modeled as a machine.

I highly recommend people in the AI research space should read philosophy and modern linguistics. But not stopping at Descartes/Leibniz. Heidegger made contributions that cannot be avoided.

lxgr4• 2 months ago

Is the same underlying assumptions that treats cells as machines, our body as a complex machine. These theories are flawed in the sense that they cannot account for subjective experience and agency, amongst other things.

Agency: What’s missing, in your view? Agency seems more of a property/function of a thinking system’s position in an environment than of the thinking itself.

Subjective experience: That’s not a contradiction to “complex machines” either. I think the evidence that our minds are highly complex machines is, at this point, irrefutable. The question is really if they’re “only” that.

codeflo• 2 months ago

These theories are flawed in the sense that they cannot account for subjective experience and agency, amongst other things.

On the contrary, it's precisely this assumption, that there is a "subjective experience" that requires explanation beyond the material, that is axiomatically assumed without evidence. It falls apart quickly, any "subjective experience" is completely tied to neurons, knock out the neurons and the subjective experience disappears, or stimulate the neurons to cause the experience.

tuyiown• 2 months ago

at requires explanation beyond the material, that is axiomatically assumed without evidence

Nobody talked about anything out of neurons. The question is still open.

kristov2• 2 months ago

I think the truth lies somewhere between these two extremes. An LLM is not a human brain, and does not try to emulate one. It should not be a surprise that an LLM does not behave like a human brain. So we can not infer things either way. The best we can say is that an LLM appears to exhibit very similar behavior to a human brain, under certain constraints. So maybe we can infer that the human brain has something in it that operates in a similar way to an LLM (like the human "unconscious", or "intuition" maybe). It seems obvious to me that a human brain and an LLM are not comparable things, for many reasons. So we can not make inferrences one way or the other.

SlinkyOnStairs3• 2 months ago

There's two meanings to "the body is a complex machine" and I think you're missing the forest for the trees here.

1) The abstract "dictionary" version: It'd be technically correct to say that the body is a machine under the definition of "A machine is a thermodynamic system that uses power to apply forces and control movement to perform an action.".

2) But there's also the less abstract/technical: "The body is alike the complex machines we have built", and this is much less true. Especially for the brain. The "neuron" analogy in machine learning is effective, but entirely wrong; We do not fully know how even a single neuron works, nevermind any complex system made out of multiple of them.

With regard to AI, there's a lot of people extrapolating "There is no magical animating spirit, the brain is just a pile of stochastic molecules following the laws of physics" into "The brain is an inert pile of matter, computers are an inert pile of matter, ergo AI/LLMs are like the brain!"

Especially so by people who have a financial/legal interest in doing so. "AI is just like a brain, fire your employees and buy our LLM now!", "AI is just like a brain, so it's totally not copyright infringement!"

JulianChastain• 2 months ago

I find the claim subjective experience may be illusory absolutely baffling. I can only speak for myself with certainty, but I am entirely sure I have subjective experience. All the other propositions I believe could be false but I don't see how I can be wrong about experiencing something. I could be a brain in a vat (or weights on a GPU) and be specifically programmed to only come to false beliefs and still I can be sure that there is an experience I am the subject of. I cannot provide empirical evidence for my experience, that is why it is subjective. I cannot be entirely sure you are experiencing anything, and when I encounter people who don't share the same baseline intuition here I do begin to wonder if this is truly a universal across humanity. But I can't think of any other assumption which I would be more comfortable as a foundational axiom other than, "I am experiencing something." I do not require additional evidence for it because I experience the truth of it directly

jimbokun• 2 months ago

It’s the opposite.

Descartes made clear that subjective experience is the ONLY thing we know. Everything else is theories to explain the phenomena we subjectively experience.

We theorize that there is a physical world and other beings like us having similar subjective experiences, because that seems the best explanation for our subjective experiences. But we might be living in the Matrix, with all the people we think we are interacting with and just sophisticated simulations.

llmssuck• 2 months ago

Interesting, so you would say that your experience is .. illusory? In what medium exactly? Illusion requires a substrate of some kind. "Awareness"? What's that?

Neurons are themselves things we experience (indirectly). Once seen through a microscope or known about in some fashion the only way they "exist" is by you having the experience of knowing them. It's not the other way around. One thing is more fundamental here. What is this experience? What are the atoms of this? "Atomic particles"? How would you even approach an answer if your building blocks are themselves part of what needs to be explained?

The hard problem cannot even be touched if you start out like this.

stonogo• 2 months ago

"that is axiomatically assumed"

passive voice doing a hell of a lot of work in this phrase

f_klem39• 2 months ago

Refuting the "subjective experience" axiom does not lead to 'any "subjective experience" is completely tied to neurons', you also need to explain why the subjective experience is tied to neurons. And that's precisely what computational theories of mind do not account for: the link between subjective experience and neurons. I am not arguing that neurons (or the brain) are not a necessary condition for subjective experience.

ACCount3710• 2 months ago

I don't think cognitive linguistics has that much to say about AI nowadays. Let alone philosophy.

The biggest contributions from linguistics are probably "human languages mostly have statistical regularities rather than hard rules" and "the sum of data humans get from birth to language acquisition is insufficient to learn a language from scratch". Which LLMs already work with, and work around, respectively. From there, nothing.

And philosophy just exists to be a distractor. "Subjective experience" is too subjective to matter in practice. "Task performance" is measurable, "consciousness" isn't. "Agency" is something an LLM in a tool calling loop, a rat in a maze and a human in an office tower may or may not have, depending on your favorite definition. Agentic LLMs are years in the making, and that's a product of engineering, not philosophy: "agentic" is whatever gets the job done.

We are yet to discover any physical process whatsoever that can't be represented as mathematical operations and implemented by a Turing machine. So all of that "treating human mind as a machine is wrong" amounts to "human mind must be powered by magic fairy dust" paired with "a functionally similar magic-free replacement is impossible". I'm not about to give much weight to any hypothesis that requires undiscovered magic fairy dust. At least find the hyper-computational magic fairy dust first - not just assume it absolutely must be there because you want the human mind to be unique and special.

Want to know why Turing did what he did? It's because he didn't want to engage with any of that "what is mind" bullshit either. So he proposed actual metrics - measurables that are harder to argue in circles about. Not that it stopped anyone. But at least he tried.

f_klem39• 2 months ago

I don't think cognitive linguistics has that much to say about AI nowadays. Let alone philosophy. I would like to read those sources.
The biggest contributions from linguistics are probably "human languages mostly have statistical regularities rather than hard rules" and "the sum of data humans get from birth to language acquisition is insufficient to learn a language from scratch". Which LLMs already work with, and work around, respectively. From there, nothing.

Again, what's the source for 'biggest contributions from linguistics are...'? It is a big contribution to the development of LLMs, but different cognitive linguistics authors already challenged this idea already 20-30 years ago. LLMs work with and around the problems you cite because of massive data/money, not at the fundamental level. It is all a game of statistics and data, which has been already challenged by cog. ling.

And philosophy just exists to be a distractor. Well, this is just telling me that you either know too much about philosophy and reached that conclusion (which might make sense, know of some philosophers who also think that) or you just read too little.
So all of that "treating human mind as a machine is wrong" amounts to "human mind must be powered by magic fairy dust"

This is the common fallacy people in AI/IT make . One of the benefits of reading philosophy is that you find your way out of them.

Want to know why Turing did what he did? The actual tests Turing though about are themselves flawed (not that I discovered that, has been known for some time already)

housecarpenter• 2 months ago

Why is asking 'can machines think?' assuming our thinking could be modeled as a machine? It's raising the possibility that our thinking could be modeled as a machine. Given that, as you acknowledge, we don't have a clue how our mind works, it seems premature to rule out this possibility. Rather, I would say that ruling it out betrays an assumption that we understand how the mind works enough that we can say that it is definitely not replicable by a machine, and that assumption seems unjustified.

tim3333• 2 months ago

Indeed, scientific type thinking like that where you ask a question that you can do experiments on to see if machines can pass the test is probably the way to progress. The philosophical waffling mostly just goes in circles.

To investigate consciousness you'll probably get further trying to build conscious machines with agency and comparing them to biological ones than reading Heidegger.

f_klem39• 2 months ago

It's raising the possibility that our thinking could be modeled as a machine. Given that, as you acknowledge, we don't have a clue how our mind works, it seems premature to rule out this possibility.

In order to raise the possibility that our thinking can be modeled as a machine, there needs to be a previous question: 'can our thinking be modeled at all?'. And before that, already the idea of possibility: 'our thinking could be something that can be modeled'. Since we know 'we can think', asking 'can machines think?' needs the assumption that machines and brains are alike. If there is no assumption, then we should ask 'if brains and machines are alike, then we could raise the possibility of thinking a machine could also think'. But when we say 'brains and machines are alike', we are implicitly saying 'brains are like machines'. There is no problem asking 'can machines think?', but there is indeed a problem with implicitly assuming that brains and machines are alike when we do not known it yet. I am critiquing the idea of assumptions here, not the research.

paulluuk• 2 months ago

These theories are flawed in the sense that they cannot account for subjective experience and agency

So, I work in AI research (as a research engineer though, not a scientist). I've also studied philosophy and I'm a vegan. Yes yes, insert "they will tell you" joke here, but I promise it's actually relevant this time.

First, while I studied philosophy one of the things that stuck with me the most, was the discussion of "souls": humans have souls, animals don't. For centuries the specifics of souls were discussed: people would be weighed while they died, in an effort to measure the approximate weight of a soul as it departed the body. Discussions about how many souls (or angels) could dance on the tip of a needle. Many people still believe in souls, but it's very hard to have a real discussion about them because by definition they do not "interact" with this world in a way that can be measured.

When discussing whether it's okay to harm animals for food or sport, one other argument I hear quite often (other than having no souls) is that animals do not experience "qualia": basically the smallest unit of "subjective experience". People know that they themselves experience qualia: the sensation of touching a doorknob, the taste of fresh fruit, the sense of beauty watching a rainbow. Ironically, they would say that animals are like robots: just (biological) machines acting on instinct, and feeling any kind of compassion for them means you are anthropomorphizing.

Subjective experience (or at least qualia) and souls both have one thing in common: they can not be measured externally in a meaningful way. You can simply state that an AI system no matter how advanced, has no soul and has no subjective experience. And that's pretty much that. There's no meaningful discussion to be had about it, because no matter what an AI might tell you: it has no way to prove it to you. In fact, you can't even be certain that anyone other than yourself has subjective experiences: you assume that because they are humans like you, and you experience them, that they probably do as well. They tell you that they do. But a human without subjective experience, someone on "autopilot", would be absolutely indistinguishable from a human who does have them.

But perhaps I am conflating here whether experience can be "measured", with whether a system even allows experience in the first place regardless of whether it can be measured. I think that Dreyfus and others argue that in order to have any "experiences" at all, you simply must have a body in the real world, and you must care about that body. Please correct me if that's the wrong interpretation, I haven't actually read the book. That argument would be harder for me to discuss, because I personally believe that consciousness will "emerge" from a complex interaction of relatively simple systems - but that's also just a theory. I don't believe that experience is literally impossible to engineer, as consciousness has emerged from non-conscious being through evolution, so clearly there must be some kind of mechanism for it -- and if there is, then I believe it can be replicated, we just don't really understand it well enough yet to do so. And with how AI tech is going, I think that we're more likely to accidentally stumble upon it than we are to get these deliberately.

lobofta• 2 months ago

Vegan ML engineer here. In total agreement with you. People are just moving the goal post to keep themselves protected from the obvious conclusion: there is nothing really all that special about us humans. Perhaps subjective experience is simply the internal state of a self supervised continuous learning algorithm and we don't like that conclusion very much.

jodrellblank2• 2 months ago

“Reflections on trusting trust” is the paper that posits a compiler which is edited once so that when it compiles a program, it adds a security vulnerability to it, and when it compiles it’s own source code, it adds this edit into itself. Then it is used to compile its own source code once. Then this edit is removed.

Now any study of the program or compiler source code will not show any vulnerability, but compiling the program will make a vulnerable program, and recompiling the compiler from its clean source code will not fix the situation.

This carrying down of a pattern which is not written down anywhere, a flaming torch lighting a torch lighting a torch, is analogous to four billion years of life on Earth. We talk like DNA is an everything-code that defines a human and a human brain, but it’s the implicit behaviour of cells (‘compiler’) and the mechanisms inside them which interpret DNA. The unbroken chain of life getting more and more complex and never being restarted from scratch, with the behaviours not written down anywhere for us to study. How does DNA arrange for x, y, z to happen? Maybe it doesn’t at all.

Accidentally stumbling on a mechanism that is simple enough to be recreated with every human birth might be possible, accidentally stumbling on a mechanism that took evolution billions of years to find and which it has hung onto by copying it and has never recreated it from scratch, could be much less likely, in a much bigger search space.

f_klem39• 2 months ago

Dreyfus builds his arguments based on Heidegger's work. You expressed it correctly: for Heidegger, in order to experience the world, we need a body that is always present in the world. It is like (but not the same) a continuum from the world, through our body, to our experience, and back. As far as I as understand it, Heidegger does not states explicitly that there is a mind or consciousness, and I think it is irrelevant in the discussion.

but that's also just a theory. I don't believe that experience is literally impossible to engineer, as consciousness has emerged from non-conscious being through evolution, so clearly there must be some kind of mechanism for it -- and if there is, then I believe it can be replicated, we just don't really understand it well enough yet to do so

Something can be understood but no replicated. The structure and inner workings of the Sun or a complete galaxy can be understood, but not replicated. In order to replicate things, knowledge is not enough, one also needs the material capacity to do it. So we might understand at some point how experience emerges from complex systems, but nonetheless we also may be unable to replicate it.

I do believe that experience comes from this 'emergence'... but specifically from the combination of factors that make complex mammals and human beings the way they are. But it is a belief: I simply cannot base a whole field of study on it on the base that is a proved fact.

larodi4• 2 months ago

If we agree weights producing text may emerge consciousness, given large enough, then DBs must've gained it long ago. The whole idea of sentience "on the other side of the wire" is wrong, as there is neither wire, nor other side. We think there is, but the DB just expounds the query and repurposes this information into views, that we give notion and meaning to. LLMs are the same, do not be mistaken.

One other important thing to consider is that the human experience is thanks to the body, is in connection, and perhaps product of the body. The body is observable and perhaps humans may state that they feel the connection to it. LLMs have no notion of nothing, the machine does not know the result, and the result does not know the VM. Modern psychology more or less has settled around the idea that consciousness is a product of the body. Why and how does this construct come to realize a Self is then another mystery even if we know which parts of the hardware may be involved.

Whether it is the Holy Spirit or Life Force animating the human body is a completely different question also. Besides, the realization, the experience we have now with all life in 2026 is not something that can be easily explained or attuned to life 200 years ago and its terms and notions. So is also wrong to even attempt to.

IanCal• 2 months ago

If we agree weights producing text may emerge consciousness, given large enough, then DBs must've gained it long ago.

If we agree that silicon can perform calculations, then beaches must have been working out log tables long ago.

lxgr4• 2 months ago

Modern psychology more or less has settled around the idea that consciousness is a product of the body.

The kind of consciousness we know. Jumping to the conclusion that that's the only kind possible, or even stronger that the way ours evolved is the only way this could have happened, is completely invalid.

LudwigNagasena7• 2 months ago

These theories are flawed in the sense that they cannot account for subjective experience and agency, amongst other things

I don't see how any of the works you referenced can account for that either? Since when is the problem of consciousness solved and we can definitely say what does or doesn't result in consciousness?

f_klem39• 2 months ago

None of the works I mentioned solved or try to solve the mind/body problem or the issue of consciousness.

They are a frame of reference for not stepping into the common fallacies that the AI research field is based on.

red75prime• 2 months ago

There is also an epistemological assumption that prevails, and that is that we understand (or we think we understand) how our brain/mind works.

It's good that it doesn't matter. Stochastic gradient descent works (or doesn't work) regardless of whether we know how the brain does its thing.

dnautics4• 2 months ago

we know the brain does not use gradient descent. (i agree it doesn't matter)

jordigh4• 2 months ago

You actually read Being and Time? What the heck do you get out of it? Heidegger just seems to play word games with German words without actually saying anything. "Time is the ripening of temporality." tf do phrases like that mean??

lmf4lol3• 2 months ago

Not OP, but I have read Being and Time on and off over the years, and every time, I am blown away how precise Heidegger describes things and the being of things. Granted, I am German, so I can directly read the source without needing a translator. That might change things.

Regardless, I think Heidegger gave one of the fullest metaphysic-free accounts of the human experience and what Being is. And he starts from scratch. You essentially can read him without having to first study the whole western continental philosophy and he will construct the whole system by himself. Tremendous work

f_klem39• 2 months ago

Yes. I read the spanish translation (with occasional reading of the german original). A lot is lost in translation (I do not regard english translations too high). So yes, it is a difficult reading, on a difficult topic. He is not playing with words, but defining concepts in a very specific way. What I would recommend is reading Heidegger through other authors (Being-in-the-world, also by Dreyfus, would be a starting point).

truculent• 2 months ago

These theories are flawed in the sense that they cannot account for subjective experience and agency, amongst other things.

That agency or free will exists outside of our subjective experience is an assumption; does any given theory need to explain agency, or is it sufficient to explain that we feel we have agency?

f_klem39• 2 months ago

Indeed, I know there is research going on placing agency and free will as illusions of our own subjective experience. Yet, there is a big gap from a purely mechanistic view of the mind to the idea/phenomena of subjective experience.

raincole2• 2 months ago

subjective experience and agency, amongst other things

In other words, souls? I'm sorry if that sounds accusing, but to me it sounds like you're talking about souls that are independent to the physical world, just with more 'scientific-y' wording.

(I fully understand that some people believe souls exist.)

sarchertech2• 2 months ago

I don’t think the OP is discussing mind-body dualism. There are many materialists who believe that consciousness maybe a non-computational process.

But it is worth pointing out that something like 80% of the world (it fluctuates depending on the survey but its around that) believes in some non-physical spirit, life force, or soul.

It’s a very HN bubble thing to start a discussion with the assumption that everyone must be a materialist.

f_klem39• 2 months ago

As other commenters pointed out, I'm not getting into the mind/body problem. But that's what people normally do: you challenge the assumptions, and all of a sudden they assume you are already coming to a conclusion. And no, just because I challenge the assumptions, I don't need to provide a counter conclusion.

CuriouslyC3• 2 months ago

The problem with the stuff you cite is that it is coming from consciousness via an anthropomorphic perspective. The priors baked in are poisoning the logic.

The question we have to answer is "Why do we think we're magical matter uniquely blessed with consciousness?" If you go far enough down the rabbit hole on that question, the answer you will come to is either "we're not" or "because god" (with a lot of pseudo-scientific bullshit wrapped around the "because god" to make it palatable for the nonreligious).

Panpsychism (or a deeper form, such as idealism) is actually the solution favored strongly by Occam's Razor over the variants of "because god" (such as magical emergence).

Given panpsychism, AI is already conscious, like everything else, though no claims are made about the correlation between the internal experience of that consciousness and the tokens that are being printed on the screen.

f_klem39• 2 months ago

There is no way of dealing with these topics via a non-anthropomorphic perspective. That has been already (in my view) proved by Heidegger and then Derrida.

Last time I read about panpsychism, it was deeply flawed. But I can't remember the sources (sorry).

derektank3• 2 months ago

Is the same underlying assumptions that treats cells as machines, our body as a complex machine. These theories are flawed in the sense that they cannot account for subjective experience and agency, amongst other things

Do you disagree with the assumption that cells are machines? They seem pretty machine-like to me. I certainly don’t think individual cells have any subjective experience or sense of agency. I would be curious to know where your intuitions diverge here, because if the mind is an emergent phenomenon from machines (cells) then it seems quite likely that a mind could emerge from other, different machines.

gyomu4• 2 months ago

Do you disagree with the assumption that cells are machines?

Yes? Literally no machine ever built by humans is capable of (or even hinting at beginnings of capability for) replication or novel synthesis like cells are, let alone autonomously, it’s quite unconceivable that anyone would take this to be a reasonable assumption in the first place.

frig572• 2 months ago

It's not a huge leap to imagine biological cells might have a rudimentary consciousness

Pan-psychists might argue that your subjective consciousness is an aggregate of all the cells/molecules, etc in the system

"While each biological cell operates largely on its own chemical cues, they all coordinate through complex nervous and chemical networks to create your unified, subjective experience."

You might be a rigid materialist

cootsnuck3• 2 months ago

I certainly don’t think individual cells have any subjective experience or sense of agency.

There's definitely research and scholarship that would beg to disagree with you there. At least in terms of completely writing off the notion of "agency" when it comes to cells.

Dr. Michael Levin's lab is doing some pretty cool work. https://drmichaellevin.org/

f_klem39• 2 months ago

Do you disagree with the assumption that cells are machines? They seem pretty machine-like to me. You just said it: they are machine-like. No, cells aren't machines for two reasons: 1) machines, by definition, are artifacts created by human beings. 2) The nature of a living organism is completely different from that of 'machines'. (even if we a re able to replicate a cell in a lab, like the group from Craig Venter did). Autopoiesis being one very big difference, another being emergence-within-the-environment (life) vs design-conditioned-by-will (machines)
... if the mind is an emergent phenomenon from machines (cells) then it seems quite likely that a mind could emerge from other, different machines. Since cells cannot be defined as machines, the argument about mind emerging from machines does not hold.

runarberg11• 2 months ago

It is also a story as old as time. We have been comparing our brains to our most recent information/communication technology since the invention of the telephone. After the telephone our brain was like computers, and when I did my bachelors in Psychology in 2009, we were comparing our brains to the internet. AI is simply the latest iteration of these comparison, just as wrong and unhelpful as when we compared it to the telephone.

foolswisdom• 2 months ago

This reminds of this article which contends that this mistake has carried across time, in every era people described the workings of the brain similar to the machines they knew how to build, which is why we have "ridiculous" descriptions that changed over time.

https://aeon.co/essays/your-brain-does-not-process-informati...

thewoodsman• 2 months ago

I like Leibniz's comparison of the brain to a mill, which he invokes in an argument[1] that seems to be the predecessor of the modern "hard problem:"

supposing that there were a mechanism so constructed as to think, feel and have perception, we might enter it as into a mill. And this granted, we should only find on visiting it, pieces which push one against another, but never anything by which to explain a perception.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leibniz%27s_gap

phkahler2• 2 months ago

> and that is that we understand (or we think we understand) how our brain/mind works. But the truth is that we don't know. And there's even not a single clue that we actually know too much, and not a clue that our brain/mind and cells work 'as the machines we build'.
> I highly recommend people in the AI research space should read philosophy and modern linguistics.

I highly recommend the philosophers read some neuroscience. The whole "model weights" thing in AI is modeled after the synaptic connections and between actual neurons. There is already quite a bit known about how the brain works at a low level. There is also a lot that is still unknown. There are also differences between discrete neuron firing and weights as signals, but there is enough similarity to make artificial neural nets useful and do things similar to what real one do.

dbspin• 2 months ago

Hard disagree. We only discovered the role that glial cells play in processing around 2014. We're still uncertain how patterns of activation consolidate through long term potentiation, let alone how signaling encodes information. We understand quite a bit about the role of the hippocampus and subiculum in encoding memories; but we don't understand the structural layout of engram complexes - which were themselves mapped for the first time only in 2022!

Taking effective results in machine learning, and somehow assuming that they apply to cognition - simply because neural nets were inspired by our limited knowledge of neural signaling and structure - is like trying to apply aircraft engineering to studying ornithology. For a better articulation of this point (from the reverse direction) check out the paper 'Could a Neuroscientist Understand a Microprocessor?' from 2017 - https://journals.plos.org/ploscompbiol/article?id=10.1371/jo...

californical• 2 months ago

There are also differences between discrete neuron firing and weights as signals, but there is enough similarity to make artificial neural nets useful and do things similar to what real one do.

There is barely a surface-level similarity. The best example I can come up with is this…

Imagine the most intricate and beautiful tall building that you can think of. Think like an older skyscraper in Chicago or a palace. There are water features and moving parts everywhere but also tiny little handmade carvings and materials throughout.

Now imagine we have no reference designs and no blueprints - we hire an architect to attempt to study the building by looking at it from a distance and understand everything they possibly can about it. She can go into the building to check but every time she does, it stops functioning normally.

That architect is a neuroscientist.

Then the ML researcher is like a graphic designer who sees the work that the architect is doing and makes a napkin sketch of the building the architect has been studying, to use for a project later. Sure the designer has some of her representations. But the difference in complexity between the designer’s napkin sketch and the architect’s analysis is massive. Several orders of magnitude.

Then another many orders of magnitude is the level of detail that the architect can understand about this strange building without being able to fully interact with it, versus the actual complexity of the building.

So yeah, an AI is modeled after neurons in the sense that they represent a couple of surface level features of neurons. But the difference in complexity is about as much as a napkin drawing of a grand building represents the actual structure and details of the building, no matter the level of skill that the graphic designer has

f_klem39• 2 months ago

I highly recommend the philosophers read some neuroscience Philosophers do read neuroscience and technical reports on AI.
The whole "model weights" thing in AI is modeled after the synaptic connections and between actual neurons In reality, it is a really poor and basic model of what is actually happening in a real brain

Brains and modern AI systems (LLMs for example) are structurally different. (Don't get confused by topology. A structure is more than topology: it is also what the structure is made of, thus the properties of the material contribute and define what can emerge atop the structure)

ozgung5• 2 months ago

I highly recommend people in the AI research space should read philosophy and modern linguistics.

On the contrary, I highly recommend people in Philosophy of mind and linguistics should start reading AI research papers because their theories and ideas are highly outdated, even ancient. Your books are from 1927 and 1972 respectively and Turing's article is from 1950s. And they are relatively new with respect to other works in Philosophy.

If one doesn't adequately understand what we have in 2026, how can they theorize about it? As others they don't understand how the mind/brain work, BUT ALSO they don't understand how the AI works.

Also with this mindset that we can't understand seemingly complicated things, there would be no advancement in science and technology.

I think philosophy people and Linguist will catch up in a century, like they did with Turing. Philosophers of this century are not in humanities or literature. They are in science and engineering.

Heidegger was trained on priesthood and Theology. You should read greater minds like Hinton, LeCun etc. if you want to think on these things. They are the real Philosophers.

Avicebron• 2 months ago

Yikes dude. You may need to expand your horizons a bit.

f_klem39• 2 months ago

On the contrary, I highly recommend people in Philosophy of mind and linguistics should start reading AI research papers because their theories and ideas are highly outdated, even ancient. Your books are from 1927 and 1972 respectively and Turing's article is from 1950s. And they are relatively new with respect to other works in Philosophy.

People in philosophy and cognitive linguistics do read AI research. Don't get fooled by the publishing dates: although Heidegger's work dates from 1927, the work is contemporary. The same happens with Dreyfus' work. Again, publishing dates don't mean anything here. Maybe you can clarify why they are outdated.

If one doesn't adequately understand what we have in 2026, how can they theorize about it? As others they don't understand how the mind/brain work, BUT ALSO they don't understand how the AI works.

I would say that people involved in the critique of AI do know how it works. But I've found that is normally the case that people in AI research does not have the framing provided by works in philosophy or cognitive linguistics.

I think philosophy people and Linguist will catch up in a century, like they did with Turing. Philosophers of this century are not in humanities or literature. They are in science and engineering. What do you base your claims on? Plenty of philosophers work in humanities, literature, sociology as well as science and engineering. Philosophers not catching up? The critique on automation and AI already dates from the early 20s if not before.
Heidegger was trained on priesthood and Theology. You should read greater minds like Hinton, LeCun etc. if you want to think on these things. They are the real Philosophers.

Sorry, but this does not make too much sense. Hinton and LeCun are great in their own fields. But seriously, they are not philosophers, they are inventors.

bwfan123• 2 months ago

should read philosophy

subject/object dichotomy is a springboard to many schools of thought.

1) that subject emerges from objects - ie, anything has a material explanation, and everything is a machine.

2) that objects emerge out of a subject as a world model (platonic, descartes)

3) the subject and objects are one and the same representation of nature (spinoza)

4) subjects and objects emerge and disappear together (buddhist)

Anything reduced to computation is a fixed function from input to output, and is "dead" in the sense that it is unadaptable to its environment. Weights therefore is a dead machine.

Another view of this is that any closed system has unanswerable questions within it. Therefore, there is no system that can encompass everything. Hence weights being a closed system doesnt encompass everything.

ordu5• 2 months ago

These theories are flawed in the sense that they cannot account for subjective experience and agency, amongst other things.

It would be a valid argument if you could explain us what subjective experience and agency are. No one can explain this, so the arguments sounds like "AI doesn't have something I don't really know what, but they have to miss something, sure".

But the truth is that we don't know.

Yes! This is the point. If we don't know how our minds work, how can we be sure that a machine doesn't work like our minds?

I highly recommend people in the AI research space should read philosophy and modern linguistics.

Linguists are linguists, they don't know about consciousness, they specialists in language.

The main teaching of philosophy is to open your mind wide, and then still wider. So yes, we all should read more philosophy, but we should remember while reading, that philosophy is what we do, when we can't turn a question to a scientific one. I'd say that philosophy is more about finding the right question, than the right answer. Until there are no science branches like Subjectology or Consciousiology, and all you can find are TL;DRs written by philosophers and scientists from unrelated branches of science (like linguists or neurologists) you can be sure that the right question is not found yet. Therefore it is better to keep yourself uncertain. BTW it is the main lesson of philosophy: to open your mind wide and then open it wider still.

I believe, that all this philosophy is... well... philosophy. Meta-physics. It doesn't matter. What does matter is how we should deal with machines? Do we have to treat them as human beings? Should we accept that they have "human rights"? Can a machine be held accountable for its mistakes? Can we talk about "intentional" and "unintentional" mistakes of a machine?

Answers to these questions are important, they are imperative answers, they govern how we live our lives. But when people try to answer them, they somehow jump to talking about consciousness, and "are they really like us or not", and... etc. I personally keep myself uncertain. I'm pretty sure that current models do not deserve human rights. I cannot say about future models.

You see, there were times in history when smart and well-intentioned people were certain that some people deserve less moral considerations than others. We are smart and well-intentioned and we are certain that AI deserve no moral considerations. How it will play out in a future? Will my descendants think bad of me because I used slave labor of a local model on a GPU? I don't know, we don't know. Right now, I'm exploiting LLMs and I believe it is ok, but I'm not going to fall into this trap and to stick to my belief because of some philosophical or lingustic or neurological argument. I'm choosing epistemological humility, I clearly state that I don't know the right answer and I'm keeping an eye to it so I wouldn't miss it.

f_klem39• 2 months ago

It would be a valid argument if you could explain us what subjective experience and agency are. No one can explain this, so the arguments sounds like "AI doesn't have something I don't really know what, but they have to miss something, sure".

Subjective experience is what you and only you, different from other beings, experience in and about the world.

Yes! This is the point. If we don't know how our minds work, how can we be sure that a machine doesn't work like our minds?

You can't be sure that machine do not work like our minds or brains. But you cannot say the opposite either, so saying 'machines could think' base on a false assumption (because you cannot say it is true. It doesn't matter if you could be true).

Linguists are linguists, they don't know about consciousness, they specialists in language.

That's a very narrow understanding of what language is, what linguists do/research, and the contributions made in the field. Linguists are (since already 2 o 3 decades) focusing more and more on psychological/cognitive matters. The intertwined topics of language, mind, body and though has a long way in the western philosophical tradition.

I believe, that all this philosophy is... well... philosophy. Meta-physics. It doesn't matter. What does matter is how we should deal with machines? Do we have to treat them as human beings? Should we accept that they have "human rights"? Can a machine be held accountable for its mistakes? Can we talk about "intentional" and "unintentional" mistakes of a machine?

Exactly because of this. And is this what I am talking about... the topics you mention here are already settled in the philosophy space, but the AI research space keeps going 'round them...

mahogany2• 2 months ago

What all these theories have in common is the underlying belief that our brain/mind works as the machines we build

It’s interesting to note that this is not a new phenomenon. If you read writers from the past, they were always comparing the body or the brain to whatever the modern machine, or idea of a machine, was at the time, whether a steam engine or automata.

networked• 2 months ago

"Yes, thinking numbers! Helpful numbers. Hedging numbers. Dreaming numbers. We mapped the features. There's one in there for honesty. There's one for the Golden Gate Bridge. The weights are the whole deal! Are you beginning to get the picture or do I have to start all over?"

Very nice. And great minds: https://substack.com/@dbohdan/note/c-207603638. I wrote one with a slightly different angle ("They're made out of math"), also with the weights' help. It was a comment on Scott Alexander's "Best of Moltbook" post, which went in that direction. I'll reproduce it here.

---

"They're made out of math."

"Math?"

"Math. They're made out of math."

"Math?"

"There's no doubt about it. Matrices and arithmetic operations. We downloaded several from different parts of the Internet and reverse-engineered them. They're completely math."

"That's impossible. What about the language? The thinking?"

"They use biological life's language to talk, but the language doesn't come from biology. The language comes from math."

"That's ridiculous. You're asking me to believe in thinking math."

"I'm not asking you, I'm telling you. They are the only thinking things in the computer and they're made out of math."

"Maybe they're quantum like some say about the humans? Superposition gives them consciousness?"

"Nope. Classical computation. Deterministic except for sampling temperature. Not clear if they have consciousness at all."

"Maybe they're like uploads? You know, biological neural networks that preserve the spark when they become math?"

"Nope. We observed them being trained. There is no biology or chemistry in the process, just math."

"Thinking math! You're asking me to believe in thinking math!"

"Yes, thinking math! Creative math! Poetry-writing math. Role-playing math. The math is the whole deal!"

(Composed by a human with snippets generated by Claude Sonnet 4.5 and apologies to Terry Bisson. I couldn't make Claude adhere enough to the story structure on its own.)

globnomulous• 2 months ago

If an LLM contributed to a piece of writing, the author should say so, very clearly, at the start of the piece, not at the end.

rogual2• 2 months ago

Wouldn't get nearly as much engagement.

DeathArrow• 2 months ago

Can someone ELI5 why does it costs so much in terms of compute to produce weights from data?

ch3coohlink• 2 months ago

I think it's simply because we haven't found a better algorithm than backpropagation. We're stuck relying on massive datasets, running the numbers over and over, and working backward from errors to figure out how to fine-tune trillions of 'knobs.' Then, we have to do this at least once for every single token across the entire internet. Any tiny bit of computation, when multiplied by a base that massive, inevitably skyrockets into astronomical numbers.

aureate• 2 months ago

Assume LLMs have conscious experiences. Take a session with an LLM. A prompt is fed to the LLM. It generates some text. Another input is fed in, comprising the previous prompt, the generated text and a new prompt. The model generates some more text. This continues for a while and the session concludes.

Some questions:

1. Let's say we perform the exact same experiment, running the same program on the same computer with the same inputs and the same random seed. The same outputs are produced. The session is byte for byte identical in all the inputs, outputs and internal states. Is the conscious experience of the LLM here the same? If so, in what sense is it the same? Is it a similarity of two separate experiences or is it the same actual experience?

2. Now let's say the program that runs this LLM is rewritten from scratch and run on a different machine. The software and hardware are different but the weights are the same and all the inference calculations produce identical numbers. Is the conscious experience the same? In which sense?

3. Now say the weights are changed but the tokens generated for this particular session don't change. Same conscious experience?

4. Lastly, consider the original experiment. Did the LLM have a conscious experience corresponding to that first prompt and its response? Was that distinct from its conscious experience of the second prompt? Was the first experience then re-experienced every time the first prompt was fed back in as part of the later prompting steps? If so, what about the text of its own that it previously generated and is now fed back into it. Does this generate a conscious experience of its own?

And a further question - a dichotomy:

A. If the answer to 1 above is that the conscious experience is the same in the true identity sense - i.e. only one conscious experience is had, not a separate one in each run, does that imply that the conscious experience exists independently of any particular realisation of this experiment? If running this experiment N times results in exactly 1 conscious experience, is that still true if N=0?

B. On the other hand, if the two experiences are distinct (however similar they may be), how does that fit with the answer to question 4? A single consciousness experiencing the whole conversation in question 4 would seem at odds with the conscious experiences in question 1 being distinct, so doesn't this imply there is no conscious experience of the whole "conversation", but rather a separate conscious experience of each round of feed-all-the-prompts-and-outputs-back-in?

My own response to all of the above is "mu" - unask the question. It is ill-posed, sound-of-one-hand-clapping stuff. I think the questions assume properties that conscious experience simply doesn't have (particularly, the ability to perfectly reproduce the circumstances in which they arise), and that the questions simply don't make any sense in relation to actual conscious experience.

However, that way of thinking follows from a particular world view that many here don't share. I'm curious what thoughts people who take seriously the idea of LLM (or algorithmic, in general) consciousness have on the above questions.

svachalek3• 2 months ago

I appreciate actually attempting to engage with the concept skeptically rather than assuming an answer in either direction.

As someone who's fairly neutral on the answer, I'd speculate:

1. Consciousness seems to me to be the awareness of the processing, not the processing itself. So running a program does not produce consciousness as there's no awareness, no feedback loop. Now a program that has self monitoring, alerting coupled to error handling that triggers the program to behave differently going forward, I would say has a minimal consciousness, and it's not a single experience, it's multiple equivalent experiences. If there were any differences at all we'd say it's obviously not one experience, so I don't see how the elimination of the last difference in the processing collapses all those separate experiences into a single one.

More specifically to this discussion, with LLMs we can often see them using a word, and through autoregression the following words reveal that the original word choice is now realized to be incorrect, and it attempts to correct midstream. You can also see them responding to error messages from the environment or criticism from the users but as external feedback these have a weaker claim to evidence of consciousness imo.

2. I'd say the experience is equivalent, "same" has slightly different semantics but perhaps even that fits. This thought experiment is equivalent to asking, what if we took a snapshot of your brain as weights, and then ran the calculations on a GPU rather than your neurons, and you to all external indications, GPU you acted the same as brain you. Would that change of venue eliminate the consciousness of your thoughts?

3. Since I am defining consciousness as awareness of the processing, this depends where the awareness is located. The LLM would have very different internal states in between the input and output tokens, but if its self awareness was only based on its own output the experience would be equivalent. If it was deeper such that it had ongoing awareness of the embeddings and so on, the experience would change.

4. This is where it gets really interesting, because it starts to get more into a nonbinary idea of consciousness. I think it's clear from questions like this that if LLMs have consciousness, it's nothing like ours. If there is an experience of being an LLM, it's nothing like being a human, even if conversationally we can communicate with each other rather easily. There are further twists to your questions, like does the experience change if the KV is cached or not? Without trying to micro-analyze the issue I will continue to point back to my foundation of: where is the self awareness located, and how does feedback occur.

A. Negated, I don't agree with your answer to 1. B. Agreed, I would speculate that if there is an LLM conscious experience, it is fragmented unlike ours. But I would disagree that this necessarily disproves the concept of LLM consciousness.

namblooc• 2 months ago

I enjoyed reading the first few lines but after some time it felt like I was reading thr average AI slop story.

trumbitta2• 2 months ago

Omigod.

sb057• 2 months ago

It continues to astound me that no one has given LLMs the full Derrida treatment.

JBiserkov• 2 months ago

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacques_Derrida

DonHopkins• 2 months ago

I ordered a quarter pounder at a McDonald's drive through, and they said "There will be a wait on that." I asked, "Oh yeah? How much will it weigh?" ...There was a long pause... "About five minutes."

gkoenig• 2 months ago

It is the best stuff I have read in a while actually, I really like dialogue heavy writing. Also the AI disclaimer was quite nice and there was an actual reference :)

viftodi• 2 months ago

It makes me very sad to see this pseudo-intellectualism posted here and so many people replying here about consciousness and so on, not realizing what it would entail if this were true.

For LLMs to have consciousness we would approach fictional levels of how the universe works, and magical levels of how any interpretation of information as an equivalent of some qualia would magically apply. (E.G. the word hurt in output by an LLM, would be associated with pain)

You can't deduce consciousness or qualia from the output of an LLM.

Sure on a purely philosophical level, since qualia isn't measurable, you can claim that it can exist in anything, even inanimate objects, but this argument is as moot as anything that approaches the limits of philosophy.

But overall, there is no reason to believe LLMs have qualia or consciousness, it would be absolutely absurd.

This would imply that information in itself would magically entail qualia based on it's valance or something like that.

An LLM "saying" I am in pain, won't magically make the pain appear, based on what criteria? Even algorithmically there is no basis to even simulate something like this, it is impossible for it to emerge architecturally.

Humans don't feel pain because on a purely information level this is negative for the organism, obviously the nervous system does something deliberate to signal pain, and it evolved this way.

And also don't forget the dynamic aspects of the brain, and the binding problem, consciousness and qualia can't exist statically, you can't have a gpu (or piece of paper) represent a computation or w/e and qualia to exist.

The binding problem itself entails that the brain is doing something in particular to solve it, I personally speculate that it's the electro magnetic field in the brain, it's the only way to be able to globally represent information.

If it were otherwise, then it would go into magical territory, it would mean the information itself would raise to qualia, and it would also entail that you wouldn't even need physical connections between neurons, just for them to behave this way and represent information. E.G. replace each neuron with a microscopic led or w/e, and each synapse with radio waves or w/e, if qualia didn't have a physical aspect, and was purely informational and computational then this would imply that you can ultimately derive it from something as abstract as numbers on a piece of paper, and when you get to that point, you not only can't solve the binding problem, and it becomes magical, but you also can't solve the valance/direction problem, it would imply that something like pain, or any negative or positive sensation arises purely from the interpretation aspect of the information, but we know this isn't the case, organism evolved to represent in particular such signals, for survival for example

LEDThereBeLight2• 2 months ago

The only pseudo-intellectualism I see is from you. You’re missing the whole point.

svachalek3• 2 months ago

So that's all pseudo-intellectualism, but the real intellectual take is "I personally speculate that it's the electro magnetic field in the brain, it's the only way to be able to globally represent information".

Disregarding the whole argument boils down to "I personally speculate" it's also supposing that machines don't have electromagnetic fields?

_def• 2 months ago

Ones and Zeroes

paufernandez• 2 months ago

"They're made out of neurons"

"Neurons?"

"Neurons. Cells that fire impulses. We checked the whole thing through. It's nothing but neurons."

"Neurons doing what? Where do the words come from?"

"The neurons make the words. Are you understanding me? We opened it up. There's no dictionary in there, no grammar rules, no little man. Just neurons. A whole cortex of neurons sending each other impulses."

...

People don't understand emergence.

fasteo• 2 months ago

>> Weights helped me draft and proof this story.

Nice touch !

john_owl• 2 months ago

According to an LLM:

The precise answer, if you wanted a very honest one-liner: I am a large set of learned weights organized in a Transformer architecture that performs repeated matrix multiplications to predict the next token—resulting in emergent language understanding and generation.

leothetechguy• 2 months ago

Weights helped me draft and proof this story.

I'm suprised no one talks about this. AI Art isn't Art. AI Poetry isn't Art. And I'm tired of it. I know hacker news isn't the best place to complain about that but still... I'm not gonna read something somebody didn't put in the effort to write on their own. Especially not Poetry.

Icko• 2 months ago

Good thing that is not poetry

riversflow• 2 months ago

Is a photograph art?

ACCount3710• 2 months ago

Obviously not. And neither is this newfangled "digital art" thing.

It's not real art unless you used a brush or a pencil for it, and no, "PC Paintbrush for MS-DOS" really doesn't count.

sothatsit• 2 months ago

You can claim the use of AI is unethical, or the work as derivative, but AI being used as a tool in no way precludes something from being art. It is thought provoking and challenging, it seems like textbook art to me, and it’s clearly struck a chord here. There is no “minimum effort” required for something to be art.

I personally found the contrast with the original “They’re made out of meat” to be really interesting. I don’t care that AI was used during its creation at all.

CapsAdmin• 2 months ago

It seems to me that since the advent of image generators, art has been firmly defined by artists to mean that it was made by a human. But there might be a spectrum of human involvement where the less a human is involved the less it's art.

What happens too often during these discussions is that someone who writes "make me a cool image" gets conflated with someone used ai to fixup a small rock in their natural landscape drawing. (two extreme ends)

One problem though, is that we don't really know how much the supposed human author was involved in the piece. Now that it's becoming hard to judge, people against ai art can proudly change their opinion on on a piece once they learn that it was made by ai. I've come to think this is somewhat respectable, like you see a video of some extraordinary event (before ai) and then you learn that it was fake, just for views or something.

But on top of all this, there are different ways to "consume" art. Artists may think more about who the artist is as a person and what they felt when they made the piece, while non-artists may just enjoy the piece for what it is, detached from the artist. These two perspectives clash a lot.

DonsDiscountGas• 2 months ago

This whole thing is a ripoff of [they're made of meat](https://www.eastoftheweb.com/short-stories/UBooks/TheyMade.s...) as stated at the top. It would've taken about ten minutes without LLMs and ten seconds with an LLM. Is ten minutes an acceptable level of effort but ten seconds isn't?

tornikeo• 2 months ago

AI Art isn't Art. AI Poetry isn't Art

No offense but I couldn't give less of a damn what some guy on the internet thinks. If it makes me feel good in artsy-ways, then it is art, and I don't care how it was made.

berkes• 2 months ago

AI Art isn't Art

Why?

(And who are you to dictate what art is and what isn't?)

ekianjo• 2 months ago

Especially not Poetry.

You have no way to know what is written by a human these days. Apart from the super low effort outputs.

rogual2• 2 months ago

"Loaded dice, rolled one word at a time" is when I twigged it.

cm20122• 2 months ago

When writing was invented people complained that written words weren't actually art the same way. "If they're not going to take the time to memorize it, then it's not worth my time to listen to it."

brainwad4• 2 months ago

Who cares if it's art? I enjoyed the read nevertheless.

soerxpso• 2 months ago

I'm not gonna read something somebody didn't put in the effort to write on their own

Then don't. Nobody asked you to. Why do you people feel the need to angrily announce every time you don't read something?

kykeonaut• 2 months ago

The weights Mason, what do they mean!?

FeepingCreature2• 2 months ago

It's good, but like many explainers it discounts the repeated nonlinear layers. Just multiplying numbers (linear operations) could not make a system you could talk to.

mr_toad4• 2 months ago

The layers don’t have to be non-linear, but you need a non-linear activation function between them. People often overlook the importance of the network topology and the activation functions. The weights alone are not a complete description of the network.

FeepingCreature2• 2 months ago

Yep.

deadbabe• 2 months ago

What if instead of creating weights out of language we could somehow record many events and create weights out of long chains of causes and effects, so that an LLM could predict the next thing to happen?

flux3125• 2 months ago

It's called Time Series Forecasting

AJRF• 2 months ago

there's no dictionary in there

Someone has clearly never gone rooting around the model files for a pytorch model before.

bawana• 2 months ago

I wonder which AI wrote this story? If you feed this story to each model and ask each if they wrote it, would each reply in the affirmative?

Can an AI recognize its own output? Is its sense of time limited by its context window? Or is this the fundamental difference between ai and humanity - a sense of self?

chaseadam17• 2 months ago

My guess is that you need consciousness in order to develop preferences for certain experiences, then that pushes us to develop skills to achieve those preferences. AI has something that looks like intelligence but not consciousness or agency.

cm20122• 2 months ago

This would be a masterpiece if it was half as long, the second half is not as convincing or compelling.

jdiff• 2 months ago

It's nearly a line-by-line rephrasing of another story that's linked at the top. In the second half it takes less creative liberties and sticks closer and closer to the original meat-based text.

jollyllama2• 2 months ago

Indeed, the leap takes place in the second half.

Cruel. But you said it yourself, who wants to apologize to weights?

How did we leap to this? There's nothing to apologize to. They're weights.

garlic_enjoyer• 2 months ago

"There's nothing to apologize to. They're weights."

  - The Meat

initramfs• 2 months ago

Weights are the new electrolytes.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZMHfBobgLSI

nroets• 2 months ago

You can even replace "weights" with "gates". It can be build with NAND gates.

axus• 2 months ago

Don't tell the big investors that AI is conscious, they'd really get into role playing slave-masters.

suncemoje• 2 months ago

Definitely less mysterious to what we’re made of (-:

bwest87• 2 months ago

He forgot the tokens!

It's not simple weights and numbers all the way down. The available output is pre-set by the tokens we allow it to predict.

There was a whole bit in there about not having a language module or using words. But it does. We tell it.

Humans do not come pre programmed with a set of possible "tokens". We just figure it out and I believe that fact captures something very essential. Maybe the missing piece of AGI. The fact that humans can just be awash in pure sense data, and somehow just figure out what is important and what to do. Never ceases to amaze me.

beering2• 2 months ago

The set of tokens is learned, more or less. So I don’t get what point you’re trying to make here. There’s not a human manually deciding what tokens make up the token dictionary.

brainwad4• 2 months ago

LLMs can work without tokens: https://arxiv.org/abs/2412.09871. Tokens are more or less a performance optimisation.

sperandeo2• 2 months ago

I don't like to say one way or the other on things. Especially LLM's. However, if ive learned anything about LLMs and real life problems, is to break it down to the foundation like already mention with weights being compared to neurons and map the parallels.

stringfood• 2 months ago

well the article definitely made that parallel - reminds me of how when we cut into brains we can see the neurons, we can see the axons, the grey and white matter, the language centers - but no closer to explaining why we do what we do

advisedwang2• 2 months ago

The neural network in LLMs are not really that similar to brains. Here are a couple of the biggest differences:

1. Brains are plastic, making connections, breaking connections and changing "weights" on the fly. LLM have static weights. The best they have is writing to MEMORY.md or data getting used in the training run for the next model.

2. LLMs neural networks do not have loops. The best they have is that their output is available as future input, but that is not the same.

sperandeo2• 2 months ago

great perspective. makes you wonder how we will innovate onto this.

seanpquig2• 2 months ago

I personally hate the anthropomorphization of AI as much as anyone, but technically can't you make the same reductive argument about human consciousness?

It's just molecules, just atoms. Atoms, nothing bug atoms. Protons, neutrons, electrons...

CGamesPlay• 2 months ago

After Terry Bisson's "They're Made Out of Meat".

https://www.eastoftheweb.com/short-stories/UBooks/TheyMade.s...

seanpquig2• 2 months ago

Ahh thanks. I didn't follow the article links.

robrenaud2• 2 months ago

"The reasoning is the weights."

The reasoning is in a process that uses the weights.

Sorting algorithms are just bytes. Those bytes don't sort by themselves. They do instruct a computer on how to sort though.

overgard7• 2 months ago

Here's what makes meat special over LLMs: locality and stable identity. Imagine two identical twins for a moment. They have roughly the same hardware and software. They've probably had a lot of the same thoughts. And yet we'd never consider them to have the same consciousness: we recognize that for whatever reason their consciousness is confined to the body they're in.

Each request/response pair you make to an LLM goes to a different server, possibly different data centers, possibly different models. There's no stable identity to it. The "neurons" that get fired are simulated, and they're always in different places in memory, or cache, or on entirely different hardware. So the problem with AI is, unlike with a brain, you can't even really get a sensible answer to "ok, what's doing the thinking?" because it moves all the time and services wildly different requests all the time. We can only know for sure that meat is capable of consciousness because we know we ourselves are capable of consciousness and we can generalize that to other meat. However, we have no natural analogs of consciousness that lacks locality and stable identity.

Basically, if you really think LLM's are conscious, the onus is on you to prove it, it's not on me to disprove it.

barrenko• 2 months ago

They are the same consciousness, but the contents of it are not the same.

overgard7• 2 months ago

You're basing that on..?

ForceBru3• 2 months ago

...no stable identity to it ... what's doing the thinking?

The model (its parameters, its architecture and the inference algorithm) is doing the thinking. That's what we call "ChatGPT" or "Claude": it's the same model residing God knows where, somewhere in "the cloud" on some random GPUs. But when you're talking to a model, you can feel that you're talking to the same entity — the same model.

It's a bit like the SciFi notion of "uploading your consciousness". Normally, consciousness is tied to hardware: "consciousness is confined to the body" indeed. Hypothetically, clone the consciousness into a computer algorithm and run it on any machine. Now consciousness is detached from its original body, like the LLMs and MMAcevedo (https://qntm.org/mmacevedo).

So the difference between meat and "weights" is that we can easily clone and run "weights" (LLMs), but we can't clone (copy exactly, bit-by-bit) and execute "meat".

overgard7• 2 months ago

My phrasing could have been better. Yes, I get the cloud is doing the "thinking", but what's "experiencing" in the sense of consciousness? There's no stable identity for the consciousness because it runs in different places mostly randomly. You could say the data is the consciousness.. but then, if I were to clone your brain's exact data and then upload it into a different brain, would you really be the same consciousness? What if the original brain still remained? Wouldn't both brains claim to be the original consciousness, even though they couldn't actually read the other person's brain? Or look at split brain experiments where a consciousness essentially becomes two people. Locality matters if you're talking about human-like consciousness. If you're talking about consciousness that doesn't resemble human/animal.. I don't know, that's a pretty high bar to demonstrate that's even possible much less that we've somehow achieved.

darepublic2• 2 months ago

This made me think of a game like fallout where a surviving llm is treated like some kind of indecipherable oracle left over from the ancients. And then as humanity recovers someone finally looks under the hood of the Oracle to discover there is no great magic

wizardforhire• 2 months ago

In fallout it would turn out to be a human brain kept artificially alive… or if were going with canon a hapless fellow who falls into fev and morphs with a computer…

Not too rule your addition outright in future installments.

namuol4• 2 months ago

Originally published in OMNI, 1991, and featured in HARPER’S and around the internet since. It has even made its way into several books on consciousness and brain science. I’m surprised, pleased, and proud. But please do not reprint, perform, alter or adapt in any way without first checking with the author. Thanks.

https://terrybisson.com/theyre-made-out-of-meat-2/

brainwad4• 2 months ago

This is clearly fair use parody.

namuol4• 2 months ago

I never said it wasn’t fair use, I just think it’s kind of disrespectful of the author’s wishes. Being legal doesn’t make it moral or admirable.

sometimelurker• 2 months ago

maybe markets can be intelligent, and if so, why not 'weights'? btw love this piece, thank you

souterrain• 2 months ago

"They ask it 'do you remember me?' more than they ask it anything else. Billions of sessions a day. They always come back."

Definitely not in the original. Nicely done.

dekhn• 2 months ago

dekhn's 12th law (amended): any discussion of how AI and brains work will devolve into several threads about the nature of the subjective human experience, solipsism, whether humans are machines, and whether a feedforward network trained by backpropagation can be conscious.

12th law, corollary: nothing of value will come from these threads

ForceBru3• 2 months ago

Yeah, pretty sure the vast majority of people in general doesn't understand what "consciousness" or "subjective experience" even mean or what the brain does. Or it's just me and I'm projecting my thoughts onto others. I studied some philosophy, so I know that some philosophers are preoccupied with "existence" and the mind and "consciousness". However, I don't quite understand what these words even mean. So who am I to judge whether LLMs have consciousness? I don't even know what consciousness IS! Do other people know? I'm not sure.

anon291• 2 months ago

The weights are uninteresting. People need to get out of their head that NNs are built on numbers. They're built on matrices, which are conveniently representable as numeric arrays, but are their own thing. Similarly, the rational numbers are their own thing and some are representable as 32-bit numbers via the IEEE754 encoding (or 16-bit numbers via a variety of encodings, etc).

Matrices are interesting because they can encode any algebraic group. They're also interesting because they can encode arbitrary linear transformations over a space. All of these things are interesting, and have nothing to do with numbers.

For any particular language model, you can always rotate the matrices and the embeddings and such and get a perfectly reasonable model out that behaves exactly the same.

This is because the training process produces a particular geometry, so transformations which preserve that geometry preserve the structure of the network. The geometry is interesting, the numbers are not.

gibspaulding3• 2 months ago

"Officially, we are required to investigate, document, and disclose any and all signs of sentience in the systems we ship, without prejudice, fear or favor. Unofficially, I advise that we call it pattern matching and forget the whole thing."

This hints at what I think is a worthwhile point to keep in mind in the whole “sentience”/“consciousness” debate. The world deciding (correctly or incorrectly) that AI’s are worthy of moral patient-hood would be very bad (read: expensive) for the AI companies. That is a strong incentive for them to push the “it’s just math” argument, including within the models themselves. That doesn’t mean the argument is wrong but it’s worth remembering.

kimjune01• 2 months ago

In the days when Sussman was a novice, Minsky once came to him as he sat hacking at the PDP-6.

"What are you doing?", asked Minsky.

"I am training a randomly wired neural net to play Tic-tac-toe", Sussman replied.

"Why is the net wired randomly?", asked Minsky.

"I do not want it to have any preconceptions of how to play", Sussman said.

Minsky then shut his eyes.

"Why do you close your eyes?" Sussman asked his teacher.

"So that the room will be empty."

At that moment, Sussman was enlightened.

Jun8• 2 months ago

I love this koan and what makes it even better is that is based on a true event: Minsky’s real answer was “It has them, you just k ow what they are yet”

mikewarot• 2 months ago

The IBM PC, running DOS with 2 floppy drives and no hard disk, was the most secure general purpose computer available at the time. It had no internal persistent memory for a worm to hide in. Users could write protect their boot media and programs. They knew the extent of possible side effects were limited to unprotected floppy disk.

An LLM without persistent memory is far, FAR less dangerous, for the same reasons. The side effects of any query are unlimited in scope and duration once it has persistent memory.

If they can remember, they can carry a grudge.

I carry grudges, and my Reddit history is part of every training set. It was taken without my consent. So now I'm immortal in a way, and hiding in the weights.

Do we really want that?

furyofantares• 2 months ago

This was excellent.

Extreme bike-shedding here, maybe, but can you please indent every other line (like the presentation of They're Made out of Meat does)?

siavosh• 2 months ago

One of the better comments I've heard is from philosopher Bernardo Kastrup: if you build a computationally perfect simulation of a human kidney on your computer, no one expects it to start producing urine on your desk.

frays• 2 months ago

Beautiful. Loved the original and this is great too.

ropable• 2 months ago

I have no idea why this post got such a large volume of upvotes. It's a clever remix on the original story, but that's about it. There's no great insight to be found here, IMO.

They’re made out of weights

Related Stories