Maybe a third neural network that knows how to purchase cloud compute?

Amazon has entered the chat

Adding to that, if you can compose multiple sub networks together then you've really got something. You can build a lot of different buildings from bricks without needing to invent new kinds of brick basically.

For instance, think about the large number of domains that robust computer vision would be useful in. Then think about the fact that if the computer understands the 3D space around it, it can hand that model off to a network that does predictive physics simulation. Now you've got something that would be useful across a extremely wide range of domains.

What we're discussing here is merely a starting state of something that'd have to rebuild itself.

Or maybe evolving modalities within one network is easier than putting it together.

Personally, I suspect consciousness is intrinsically connected with whatever lets humans learn things by looking at and thinking about a single example.

>Giant robot pilot looking smug Caption: I am a genius!

Picture break: >same robot pilot now looking horrified. >Caption: Oh no!

I can tell you right frigging now, the average person is trained through education to build up confidence they know what they are doing, then over the next decade plus face-checked against reality to build an aversion/paranoia matrix.

The modern world is essentially orchestrated by people who build self-sustaining support structures of specialists. We've done a great job at building co-dependent specialists, but a terrible one at building generalists.

E.g., look at how the technological progress it makes is at risk of destroying human civilization. A series of ecological boom/bust cycles could lead toward negative selection for consciousness. Or we might manage to wipe out ourselves or, say, most mammals, leading life on earth to start over as it did 65m years ago.

But even without that, it's not clear to me that consciousness will really win out. Look at the number of successful people who are not only painfully unreflective, but need to be to keep doing what they're doing. I could name a lot of people, but today's good example is Alex Jones, whose whole (very profitable) schtick is based on refusing to be fully conscious of what he's saying: https://popehat.substack.com/p/alex-jones-at-the-tower-of-ba...

And this is hardly a new idea. Vonnegut wrote a novel where humans end up evolving into something like a sea lion. The point being "all the sorrows of humankind were caused by 'the only true villain in my story: the oversized human brain'", an error evolution ends up remedying.

Edit: To be clear, I posit that consciousness is the organ that enables us to distinguish between Good and Evil.

That same professor has done a bunch more work on the topic, as have many others.

Evolution is a strange phenomenon. I invite us to marvel at the transformation of terrestrial quadrupeds into majestic aquatic creatures, over eons: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_cetaceans

Evolutionary speaking, cetaceans "share" the front limbs with quadrupeds. And yet there is a qualitatively distinct functional difference. Consider that moral consciousness, as present in humans, is functionally not quite the same as its biological precursor, the moral sense present in dogs or gorillas. And, of course, there are gradual changes along the evolutionary way.

Edit: "Organ", more precise "sensory organ", as in "the visual organ". Perhaps there is a better word here than "organ" here, before we get lost in the medical distinction between eye / retina / optic nerve / cortex / etc.

But I stand by my point. A moral sense is something that provably exists in a lot of social animals. Is it different in each species? Yes. Is it different in each individual? Surely. But unless you're going to claim that all of those animals are conscious, you can't say that consciousness is foundational to a moral sense. Indeed, I think the much easier argument is that a moral sense is foundational to evolving consciousness.

Edit. Don't really want to be unnecessarily flippant here. Perhaps this is a real person attempting to communicate. Sadly, I was unable to follow through, the text jumps wildly between seemingly unrelated subjects.

The argument of the article is that DALL-E doesn't respond appropriately to a particular kind of input - two entities in some kind of spatial relationship (that it hasn't often seen). Dall-E's not extrapolating the three-D world but stretching a bunch 2-D images together with some heuristics. That works to create a lot of plausible images sure but it implies to this ability might not, say, be able to be useful for the manipulation of 3-D space.

So, given a "Chinese room" is just a computation, it's plausible that some Chinese room could handle 3-d image manipulation more effectively than this particular program.

Which is to say, "no, the criticism isn't this is a Chinese room, that is irrelevant".

Are we not conscious?

It turns out that when one looks at the argument in detail, and in particular at Searle’s responses to various objections (such as the Systems and Virtual Mind replies), it is clear that he is essentially begging the question, and his ultimate argument, “a model is not the thing modeled”, is a non-sequitur.

It's a sound argument to the extent that qualia clearly exist, but no one has any idea what they are, and even less of an idea how to (dis)prove that they exist in external entities.

It's the materialists who are begging the question, because their approach to qualia is "Well obviously qualia are something that just happens and so what?"

Unfortunately arguments based on "Well obviously..." have a habit of being embarrassingly unscientific.

And besides - written language skills are a poor indicator of human sentience. Human sentience relies at least much on empathy; emotional reading of body language, expression, and linguistic subtexts; shared introspection; awareness of social relationships and behavioural codes; contextual cues from the physical and social environment which define and illuminate relationships; and all kinds of other skills which humans perform effortlessly and machines... don't.

Turing Tests and game AI are fundamentally a nerd's view of human intelligence and interaction. They're so impoverished they're not remotely plausible.

So as long as DALL-E has no obvious qualia, it cannot be described as sentient. It has no introspection and no emotional responses, no subjective internal state (as opposed to mechanical objective state), and no way to communicate that state even if it existed.

And it also has no clue about 3D geometry. It doesn't know what a sphere, only what sphere-like shading looks like. Generally it knows the texture of everything and the geometry of nothing.

Essentially it's a style transfer engine connected to an image search system which performs keyword searches and smushes them together - a nice enough thing, but still light years from AGI, never mind sentience.

Even if it were about qualia, calling the argument sound “to the extent that” we don’t know enough to tell whether its premises are correct would be a misuse of ‘sound’ and a rather blatant case of burden-shifting - effectively saying “so prove me wrong!” to skeptics.

Materialists can and do make question-begging claims, but that does not somehow cancel out Searle’s own question-begging (furthermore, somewhat ironically, Searle describes himself as a materialist!)

The soundness of the argument cannot be established by showing that current technology is far from being strong AI, as the argument claims much more than just that - it claims it to be impossible in principle. Anyone making such a claim has assumed a heavy burden that demands stronger arguments than you are making here.

Have you ever used a map?

If not, I'd like you to get one and I want you to point out your home in every one. Can you use a magnifying glass, then look at the map hard enough to see yourself looking over a tinier map? Ad infinitum?

That is what Searle means. A map is a model of the world. The model of a world that is a map is not, in fact, in any way equivalent to or interchangeable with the thing it models. It is merely a distilled representation that provides a facsimile representative enough to be useful. So to would be any attempt at modeling consciousness.

If the argument you present here could be so easily generalized, it would work just as well for “proving” that a computer model of an Enigma cypher machine cannot encipher text.

The Chinese Room and the brain of a Chinese-speaking person are completely different physical processes. Looked at on an atomic level, they have almost nothing in common. Mind-body dualists may or may not agree that the room is not "conscious" in the way a human is, but if consciousness is purely a material process, I can't see how the materialist can possibly conclude all the relevant properties of the completely dissimilar room and person are the same.

Those that would argue the Chinese Room is "conscious" in the same way as the Chinese person are essentially arguing that the dissimilarity of the physical processes is irrelevant: the "consciousness" of the Chinese person doesn't arise from molecules bouncing around their brain in very specific ways, but exists at some higher level of abstraction shared with the constituent molecules of pieces of paper with instructions written in English and outputs written in Chinese.

The idea our consciousness exists in some abstract sense which transcends the physics of the brain is not a new one of course. Historically we called such abstractions souls...

What if there's just no way to build consciousness from the building blocks that are within our reach?

Of course parts of regular computers involve "quantum stuff", like details of how transistors and hard drives work, but that doesn't mean they're magic.

I haven't found a definition of consciousness which is quantifiable or stands up to serious rigour. If it can't be measured and isn't necessary for intelligence, perhaps there is no magic cut-off between the likes of Dall-E and human intelligence. Perhaps the Chinese-room is as conscious as a human (and a brick)?

You might get a kick out of this paper (though some may find it's proposal a bit bleak, I think there's a way to integrate it without losing any of the sense of wonder of the experience of being alive :) )

It analogizes conscious experience to the a rainbow "which accompanies physical processes in the atmosphere but exerts no influence over them".

Chasing the Rainbow: The Non-conscious Nature of Being (2017) https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2017.0192...

> Though it is an end-product created by non-conscious executive systems, the personal narrative serves the powerful evolutionary function of enabling individuals to communicate (externally broadcast) the contents of internal broadcasting. This in turn allows recipients to generate potentially adaptive strategies, such as predicting the behavior of others and underlies the development of social and cultural structures, that promote species survival. Consequently, it is the capacity to communicate to others the contents of the personal narrative that confers an evolutionary advantage—not the experience of consciousness (personal awareness) itself.

So consciousness is more about what it subjectively feels like to be under pressure/influence to broadcast valuable internal signals to other (external) agents in our processes of life; aka other humans in the super-organism of humanity. I analogize it to what a cell "experiences" that compel it to release hormonal signals in a multicellular organism.

Can't it be both? What's the difference? Evolution just responds to the environment, so a method of complex interaction with the environment like "consciousness" or "ever-polling situational awareness" seems like par for the course.

Giraffes didn't get a long neck because the food was out of reach, giraffes have a lock neck because the one without just died.

If I introduce an antibiotic into a culture of bacteria and they evolve resistance, then they appear to be responding to it on a collective level.

https://health.mo.gov/safety/antibioticresistance/generalinf...

Mutation happens all the time because cell replication isn't perfect, some mutation are irrelevant, some deadly, some bring better chance of survival.

It's not a response just the result. Or how does the bacteria know it's an antibiotic and not just water? It doesn't, water just isn't a evolutionary filter, antibiotics are.

> to allow introspection

Evolution doesn’t do things “to anything”. It repeats what works, and kills the rest. Our brains have allowed us to adapt to the changes in the environment better than the rest. Conscience came with the pack. It might not have an actual “purpose”- it could be an “appendix”.

My personal belief is that consciousness started as the self-preservation instinct that most animals have, and we developed introspection as a way to strengthen our ties to other members of our family or tribe. And then we “won” (for now)

To what extent does this describe evolution? :-)

Mostly clarifications for people who anthropomorphize the process.

Philosophical consciousness is what the oft misunderstood quote cogito ergo sum, I think therefore I am, was hitting on. Descartes was not saying that consciousness is defined by thinking. He was trying to identify what he could know was really real in this world. When one goes to sleep, the dreams we have can often be indistinguishable from a reality in themselves, until we awake and find it was all just a dream. So what makes one think this reality isn't simply one quite long and vivid dream from which we may one day awake?

But this wasn't an appeal to nihilism, the exact opposite. The one thing he could be certain of is that he, or some entity within him, was observing everything. And so, at the minimum, this entity must exist. And the presence of this entity is what I think many of us are discussing when we speak of consciousness. In contrast to physical consciousness, you are philosophically conscious even when sleeping.

Of course like you said philosophical consciousness cannot be proven or measured and likely never will be able to be, which makes it an entirely philosophical topic. It is impossible for me to prove I am conscious to you, or vice versa, no matter what either of us does. Quite the private affair, though infinitely interesting to ponder.

There a few interesting thoughts about consciousness that I've found in those books. One is that the boundary between consciousness and "real matter" is imaginary: consciousness exists only because of change in that matter, when the change stops - so does consciousness, consciousness creates reality for itself, and the two are in fact just two sides of the coin. In other words, static consciousness isnt a thing, and hence the need for "reality".

Human consciousness is a sum of many consciousnesses that exist at wildly different levels of reality. There are primitive cellular consciousnesses, and those sometimes influence our mental consciousness. Our neural cerebrospinal system has an advanced consciousness capable of independent existence: it manages all the activity of internal organs, and only loosly interacts with our higher mental consciousness. That cerebrospinal system is even self-conscious in a primitive way: it can observe its own internal changes and distinguish them from impulses from the outside. There's emotional and mental consciousness that mainly lives in the brain and is somewhat aware of the dark sea of lower consciousness below it.

Most people are conscious in dreams, as they can perceive in that state. However they cant make (yet) distinction between inner processes (self) and external effects (others), so to them it appears as if everything is happening inside their mind, i.e. they are not self-conscious. That's consciousness of a toddler. Some are more advanced, they start seeing the me-others difference and can form memories from dreams.

I'm often struck by how stark this is in ancient fantasy art. The 'monsters' are usually just different animal parts remixed -- the head of one on the body of another, things like that. Fundamentally, we're all doing DALL-E-ish hybridization when we're being creative; it's very difficult to imagine things that are truly alien such that they're outside the bounds of our 'training data'.

Looks like it's still available for free from the author's website [0]

[0] https://www.rifters.com/real/Blindsight.htm

Blindsight is an excellent book in its exploration of consciousness, but the speculative part is that a working sense of self isn't necessary for embodied intelligence (like the scramblers), which I tend to doubt. An agent without a model of itself will have difficulty planning actions; knowing how its outputs/manipulators are integrated into the rest of reality will be a minimum requirement to control them effectively. It is certainly possible that "self" or "I" will be absent; humans can already turn the ego off with drugs and still (mostly) function but they remain conscious.

Doesn't that fall back to the old consciousnesses trap that nobody knows how to resolve? How do you know if the human reporting that he's conscious is actually conscious and not philosophical zombie?

We don't know what generates consciousness because we don't know how to measure it, and if we can't measure it, we will always have to take the words of an seemingly conscious entity for it.

I don't buy the philosophical zombie argument simply because consciousness does alter behavior. I wouldn't participate in this conversation the same way if I didn't experience consciousness. It would be more like vivid imagination (as apposed to moderate aphantasia) where I find it curious but don't have it. As in the novel, unconscious beings probably behave noticeably different.

There are, apparently, some people who have a very reduced sense of consciousness. I know I have done and said things when I'm not (memorably) conscious, for example when half asleep or coming out of anesthesia, and my behavior has been altered according to witnesses. I wasn't quite "myself". I can also hyper-focus and reduce conscious awareness of my surroundings and of my own body and mind, but that still feels like I have an internal awareness and memory of the experience. I am fairly certain I would be able to tell if that is switched off for a time.

I don’t think you’re conscious. Prove me wrong.

It looks like we’re beginning to get the building blocks of consciousness together. But we don’t yet know how to combine the wave functions into a chorus necessary to achieve GI

A person who is sleeping or in a vegetative state is not currently getting new inputs fed into some parts of their brain, so it's not surprising that their brain "lights up differently," nor does it imply anything about a piece of software that is getting new inputs that might be being integrated into its model (of course, a model that is trained and then repeatedly used without further integration is not in any way comparable to a brain).

This more abstract idea of consciousness is definitely not a solved problem - people can't even manage to agree on whether non-human animals have it. And a lot of internet arguments for why this or that neural network can't be conscious probably also rule 5 year olds out of it too.

Just neural circuits are not going to be conscious by themselves, for one they need to learn concepts from the environment and those concepts shape the neural circuits. Thus the way they act shape how they develop. You can't separate consciousness from the environment where it develops.

In other words it was not the neural net that was lacking, but the environment.

The best we can do with humans (and maybe animals) is behaviorism and inference on our own personal consciousness at this point, with brain imaging to demonstrate at least gross prediction of consciousness in humans.

How can someone possibly report when they are not experiencing consciousness?

By an absence of reporting it. If I sit at a desk getting my neurons moderated by testing equipment and say "I am conscious" every subjective second that I am experiencing consciousness then I could at least help narrow down when consciousness is lost. If I am simply unable to speak or respond at all, but still conscious, I would report that fact later. Only in the case of locked-in conscious awareness without later memory of the experience would this kind of experimental setup fail, and this is where brain imaging could probably help determine that everything except motor or memory neurons were active.

Google can give you endless pictures of giraffes if you search for it. But it can only connect you to what exists. It doesn't know things, it knows OF things.

DALL-E has knowledge of the concept of a giraffe, and can synthesize an endless amount of never-before seen giraffes for you. It actually knows what a giraffe is.

No. You know what a giraffe is, Dall•E simply creates pixel groups which correlate to the text pattern you submitted.

Watching people discuss a logical mirror scares me that most people are not themselves conscious.

They just assert it as axiomatic, whistling-past all the ways that they themselves – unless they believe in supernatural mechanisms – are also the product of a finite physical-world system (a biological mind) and a finite amount of prior training input (their life so far).

I'm beginning to wonder if the entities making this argument are conscious! It seems they don't truly understand the issues in question, in a way they could articulate recognizably to others. They're just repeating comforting articles-of-faith that others have programmed into them.

They'll find some morsels of fragmentary hints-of-meaning in the junk, or just act from whatever's bouncing around in their own 'ground state', and make something interesting & coherent, to please their interlocutor.

So I don't see why this corner-case impugns the level-of-comprehension in DALLE/etc – either in its specific case, nor in the other cases where meaningful input produces equally-meaningful responses.

In what ways are you yourself not just a "very complex & impressive mirror", reflecting the sum-of-all external-influences (training data), & internal-state-changes, since your boot-up?

Your expectationthat random input should result in noise output is the weird to me. People can see all sorts of omens & images in randomness; why wouldn't AIs?

But also: if you trained that expectation into an AI, you could get that result. Just as if you coached a human, in a decade or 2 of formal schooling, that queries with less than a threshold level of coherence should generate an exceptional objection, rather than a best-guess answer, you could get humans to do so.

Given the model has only 1 input and 1 output and training is essentially surviving that order, it's not dissimilar.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bouba/kiki_effect

This is probably because your string is a low-entropy keyboard-mash.

Of course. And the equivalent of that explanation is baked into DALL-E, in the form of its programming to always generate an image.

> but DALLE can not act like humans

No, not generally, but I don't think anyone has claimed that.

So is a single-purpose AI equivalent to the entirety of the Human Experience? Of course not. But can it be similar in functionality to a small sliver of it?

One great example of this phenomenon is "Häagen-Dazs".[0]

Admittedly that's a brand name, rather than a specific dish, but I assume that Dalle-2 would generate an image of ice cream if given a prompt with that term in it (unless there is a restriction on trademarks?).

[0] https://funfactz.com/food-and-drink-facts/haagen-dazs-name/

Asking it to produce noise, or raise an objection that a prompt isn't sufficiently meaningful to render, is a silly standard because it's been designed, and trained, to always give some result. Humans who can object have been trained differently.

Also, the GPT models – another similar train-by-example deep-neural architecture – can give far better answers, or give sensible evaluations of the quality of its answer, when properly prompted to do so. If you wanted a model that'd flag nonsense, just give it enough examples, and enough range-of-output where the answer your demanding is even possible, and it'll do it. Maybe better than people.

The circumstances & limits of the single-medium (text, or captioned image) training goals, and allowable outputs, absolutely establish that these are different from a full-fledged human. A human has decades of reinforcement-training via multiple senses, and more output options, among other things.

But to observe that difference and conclude these models don't "understand" the concepts they are so deftly remixing, or are "just a very complex and impressive mirror", does not follow from the mere difference.

In their single-modalities, constrained as they may be, they can train the equivalent of a million lifetimes of reading, or image-rendering. Objectively, they're arguable now better at composing college-level essays, or rendering many kinds of art, than most random humans picked off the street would be. Maybe even better than 90% of all humans on earth at these narrow tasks. And, their rate of improvement seems only a matter of how much model-size & training-data they're given.

Further: the narrowness of the tasks is by designers' choice, NOT inherent to the architectures. You could – and active projects are – training similar multi-modality networks. A mixed GPT/DALLE that renders essays with embedded supporting pictures/graphs isn't implausible.

So the interesting part is this, why did one random prompt fail in a consistent way and the other in a random way? Perhaps the encoding of meaning into vocabulary has patterns to it that we ourselves haven't noticed. Maybe your random string experiment works because there is some amount of meaning in the syllables that happened to be in your chosen string.

You can easily see that these language models are in some sense working on fragments as much as they are on the actual words isolated by spaces in your sentence. Just take a test sentence and enter as a prompt to get some images. Then take that same sentence, remove all spaces and add new spaces in random locations, making gibberish words. You will see that the results will retain quite a few elements from the original prompt, while other things (predominantly monosyllables) become lost.

To me, I have not seen a single example that cannot just be explained by saying this is all just linear algebra, with a mind-bogglingly huge and nasty set of operators that has some randomness in it and that projects from the vector space of sentences written in ASCII letters onto a small subset of the vector space of 1024x1024x24bit images.

If you then think about doing this just in the "stupid way", imagine you have an input vector that is 4096 bytes long (in some sense the character limit of DALL-E 2) and an output vector that is 3 million bytes long. A single dense matrix representing one such mapping has 6 billion parameters - but you want something very sparse here, since you know that the output is very sparse in the possible output vector space. So let's say you have a sparsity factor of somewhere around 10^5. Then with the 3.5 billion parameters of DALL-E 2, you can "afford" somewhere around 10^5 such matrices. Of course you can apply these matrices successively.

Is it then so far fetched to believe that if you thought of those 10^5 matrices as a basis set for your transformation, with a separate ordering vector to say which matrices to apply in what order, and you then spent a huge amount of computing power running an optimizer to get a very good basis set and a very good dictionary of ordering vectors, based on a large corpus of images with caption, that you would not get something comparably impressive as DALL-E 2?

When people are wowed that you can change the style of the image by saying "oil painting" or "impressionist", what more is that than one more of the basis set matrices being tacked on in the ordering vector?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bouba/kiki_effect

There's other evidence in support of this idea, but it would be a hassle for me to dig it up now.

>Your first random prompt is far from random. It contains the fragments "sublim", "chr", "cross" and "corpt" in addition to the isolated "E", which all project the solution down towards Latin and Christianity.

Oh right, I omitted a sentence. DallE gave me churches. DallE-mini gave me bicycle racing and beetles. Both of them behaved self-consistently, but were not consistent with each other. I did test changing some of the words that seemed like they might be having the steering effects like you pointed out. The new phrase was "E sublumary widge fraus chronly non estoi". DallE mini gave me mostly doctors/medical procedures with a few indiscernible scenes mixed in. Real DallE gave me scrabble, word tiles, pages from a book.

Its like this. If you talk to a dog with the "who's a good boy" voice, the dog will understand "who's a good boy", even if you're actually saying "who's a little asshole". Likewise, a pronounceable string will generally feel like it belongs within a certain envelope of meanings, even if its not actually a phrase in any real spoken language.

I showed some maps that DallE generated which happened to have some places labelled with its usual gibberish. People said the place names felt vaguely like they might be in Eastern Europe. Interpretation of nonsense words works both in the direction of human to DallE and DallE to human!

For example, the "yon" is immediately reconizable to me (hither and yon), so "yon corpti" could mean a distant corpti (whatever a corpti is). "becross" looks similar to "across" but with a be- prefix (be-tween, be-neath, be-twixt, etc.), so could be an archaic form of that. "chronly" could be something time related (chronos+ly). etc...

That morse code gives nothing useful probably just indicates some combination of – (a) few morse transcripts in training set; (b) punctuation-handling in training or prompting – makes it more opaque. It's opaque to me, other than recognizing it's morse code.

https://i.dailymail.co.uk/1s/2019/04/25/14/12707994-6959547-...

Below a certain level of complexity, perhaps only "vaguely like beetle or bicycle/race names" arbitrarily survived all the other competing influences on the model's internal weights. Above, much more subtle patterns – like many more latinate word roots – might start to survive.

Compare also what I linked in another thread branch – https://twitter.com/gojomo/status/1540095089615089665 – where simply growing the size of a similar (non-public Google PARTI) model leads to a phase-change in its ability to render meaningful human text.

But saying "It’s simply a high dimensional latent mapping between characters and pixels" is clearly a very bad argument. Your brain is simply a high dimensional latent mapping between your sensory input and your muscular output. This doesn't make you not intelligent.

It definitely does more than that.

Retrain dall-e and give it a choice whether it generates an image or does something else, and you will get a different outcome.

The argument boils down to this: is a human brain nothing but a mapping of inputs onto outputs that loops back on itself? If so the dall-e / gpt-3 approach can scale up to the same complexity. If not, why not?

I took a quick look at the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy entry for philosophical zombies ( https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/zombies/ ) and I can't see evidence of this argument having been seriously advanced by professionals before. I think it would go something like:

"Yes, we have strong evidence that philosophical zombies exist. Most of the laypeople who discuss my line of work are demonstrably p-zombies."

("A laser is trying to find the darkness...")

Though, I guess maybe that is all “knowing what a giraffe is” is?

Would a person who only ever read articles and looked at pictures of giraffes have a better understanding of them than Dall-e does? At some level, probably, in that every person will have a similar lived experience of _being_ an animal, a mammal, etc. that Dall-e will never share. Is having a lesser understanding sufficient to declare it has no real understanding?

This is basically on the same level as our visual cortex and some form of memory. But our visual cortex isn't sufficient to give us consciousness.

The burden of proof is not on the one claiming logically consistent interpretations of events.

I suggest you look at the parent article.

Defining "understanding" in the abstract is hard or impossible. But it's easy to say "if it can't X, it couldn't possibly understand". Dall-E doesn't manipulate images three dimensionally, it just stretch images with some heuristics. This is why the image shown for "a cup on a spoon" don't make sense.

I think this is a substantial argument and not hand-waving.

True, it has some problems fully abstracting, and then logically-enforcing, some object-to-object relationships that most people are trivially able to apply as 'acceptance tests' on candidate images. That is evidence its scene-understanding is not yet at human-level, in that aspect – even as it's exceeded human-level capabilities in other aspects.

Whether this is inherent or transitory remains to be seen. The current publicly-available renderers tend to have a hard time delivering requested meaningful text in the image. But Google's PARTI claims that simply growing the model fixes this: see, for example: https://twitter.com/gojomo/status/1540095089615089665

We also should be careful using DALL-E as an accurate measure of what's possible, because OpenAI has intentionally crippled their offering in a number of ways to avoid scaring or offending people, under the rubric of "AI safety". Some apparent flaws might be intentional, or unintentional, results of the preferences of the designers/trainers.

Ultimately, I understand the practicality of setting tangible tests of the form, "To say an agent 'understands', it MUST be able to X".

However, to be honest in perceiving the rate-of-progress, we need to give credit when agents defeat all the point-in-time MUSTs, and often faster than even optimists expected. At that point, searching for new MUSTs that agent fails at is a valuable research exercise, but retroactively adding such MUSTs to the definition of 'understanding' risks self-deception. "It's still not 'understanding' [under a retconned definition we specifically updated with novel tough cases, to comfort us about it crushing all of our prior definition's MUSTs]." It obscures giant (& accelerating!) progress under a goalpost-moving binary dismissal driven by motivated-reasoning.

This is especially the case as the new MUSTs increasingly include things many, or most, humans don't reliably do! Be careful who your rules-of-thumb say "can't possibly be coceptually intelligent", lest you start unpersoning lots of humanity.

Your argument overall seems to take "you skeptics keep moving the bar, give me a benchmark I can pass and I'll show you", which seems reasonable on it's face but I don't think actually works.

The problem is that while algorithm may be defined by theory and tested by benchmark, the only "definition" we have for general intelligence except "what we can see people doing". If I or anyone had a clear, accepted benchmark for general intelligence, we'd be quite a bit further towards creating it but we're not there.

That said, I think one thing that current AIs lack is an understanding of it's own processing and an understanding of the limits of that processing. And there are many levels of this. But I won't promise that if this problem is corrected, I won't look at other things. IDK, achieving AGI isn't like just passing some test, no reason it should be like that.

You can read OpenAI's paper or try using it. They've intentionally not taught it many things; it doesn't know most celebrities' names, or copyrighted characters, and there's several filters before and after the big model to prevent NSFW generations of any type.

(Oddly, it does know "Homer Simpson" and "Hatsune Miku".)

That sound data sanitizing rather than the AI safety/danger that Bostrom and company worry about. For them, it's "OMG, must limit it's capabilities" rather than "Must keep it from doxing or offending people". The parent I was replying to was kind of ambiguous what sort of crippling they meant (We also should be careful using DALL-E as an accurate measure of what's possible, because OpenAI has intentionally crippled their offering in a number of ways to avoid scaring or offending people, under the rubric of "AI safety".)

It seems one of their techniques is to silently add extra words to some prompts to increase the variety of returned images in certain dimensions, eg: https://twitter.com/rzhang88/status/1549472829304741888

While I can't find the link right now, someone also tweeted examples of asking DALL-E2 for certain historical roles that would have been, by actual history and likely representation in training data, fairly uniform in race/sex – but the new OpenAI 'bias mitigations' generate ahistorical race/gender-varied examples. That's interesting – I'm a big fan of non-traditional castings like 'Hamilton!' etc – but serves to make the AI look ignorant of history, when in fact it has just been design-limited to simulate ignorance.

Prompts like "a movie still of ancient philosopher Heraclitus", "ancient philosopher Aristotle", and "famous physicists of the 17th century" render largely plausible portraits – except with an added sprinkling of ahistorical, 21st Century "AI safety" race/gender variety.

This is less a common-sense failure of the AI than an artifact of its creators' imposed harnesses.

And thus I'd suggest that more generally, unless a model's full design/training-data/constraints are fully described, it remains possible that other "failures" could sometimes be side-effects of undisclosed designer choices.

And as agents increasingly surpass that, the focus shifts, or retreats, to even murkier standards. "Sure, but it's just a mechanistic mirror, it doesn't really have [X, Y, Z] inside, even if it's externally indistinguishable from human excellence." So, an originally 'black-box' internally-oblivious test then shifts to a 'white-box' internally-dependent test, just to maintain the same comforting conclusion.

And by subtly shifting the grounds-of-evaluation, & definitions, it becomes easier to ignore massive improvements, & disturbing potential impacts. It creates an illusion of "zeno's paradox" where agents are never reaching the (shifting) endpoint, when in fact they're speeding past every robust test that can be devised. That's a really important thing to accurately notice!

Also, regarding: "current AIs lack… an understanding of it's own processing and an understanding of the limits of that processing"

People only have vague, incomplete understanding of their own reasoning, & limits, too. (Experts in restricted domains may be better – and those domains are often easier to train in an artificial agent.) The mere act of "thinking-about-thinking" can sometimes improve the quality of reasoning in humans – forcing something to be explainable – and it turns out to help in these modern large models too. Asking a GPT-like Large Language Model (LLM) to explain its reasoning step-by-step can improve its answers; prompting it with the info that it is an agent that may make errors, and asking it to state its confidence, also often generates more truthful, properly-qualified output.

So are the current LLMs that much behind, or inherently incapable of, human-level self-understanding in this sort of test? It seems an open question to me, and even if current SotA models miss a mark, perhaps 5x or 1000x larger models coming soon will outdo humans on any measurable test of "self-understanding", too.

Examples of prompts that don't really work are "spherical giraffe" and "the underside of a giraffe".

We'll need more 3Dness to generate other media like models and video, so it should be coming.

If we assume this AI or a successor can win that evaluation, in what way would you say you know what a giraffe is better than the AI?

Perhaps a more interesting question could be: [how] do we know what consciousness is?

Dall-E will likely be similar in that it is effectively doing that perception step where you fix the text description from the classifier output and run that in reverse to show what the neural network is "seeing" when it is "thinking" about that given output. So it won't be able to describe features of a giraffe, or information about where they live, etc. but it will be able to show you what it thinks they look like.

[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AyzOUbkUf3M [2] https://youtu.be/AyzOUbkUf3M?t=1293

How would you tell the difference though? Can you think of a test to distinguish between those two abilities ?

*Don't mistake skepticism for knowledge*

This is a major problem on this site and elsewhere.

The same way when the creator of humanity turned out to be "evolution by natural selection" we didn't redefine the term "God" to mean that. Eventually we just started using the new term.

I use GPT3 to generate the usual trite arguments about intelligence and consciousness why computers won't ever get there. Of course I don't actually reveal that a computer is generating my responses until later on. Eventually everyone will become jaded and skeptical that the other participants in that conversation are real people. Soon all arguments about machine intelligence will devolve into accusations of using GPT3 or not. Some day, even mentioning consciousness will just make everyone assume you're probably a GPT3 troll. This kills the conversation in a way that makes a valid point. If the bots can't be reliably identified, the proof is in the pudding and the matter is settled.

We need to go a bit deeper to tease out what makes DALL-E 2 amazing.

Several of the pictures look like it's taken geometry from a 'touching' source and painted both 'monkey' and 'iguana' textures on to both figures, because on the one hand its model of relationships is too sophisticated to just copy/paste monkey and iguana photos from its library, and on the other hand it's not sophisticated enough to always treat "monkey touching iguana" as implying that the monkey and the iguana are discrete animals. (An interesting contrast with it being generally praised for being remarkably good at things like putting hats on animals' heads...)

But I don't think if you asked 18 humans to independently draw "monkey touching iguana" you'd get 17 pairs of monkey/iguana hybrids mostly not touching each other against photographic backgrounds often featuring human limbs and one apparently normal monkey being pursued by a giant iguana!

Most people would answer that as a giraffe.

Intriguing that it's gone for a headshot for all of them. I suspect it says something about the source text

The text model of dall-e at very least can map "Long-necked spotted mammal that eats leaves from trees" near the same representation of "giraffe"

Do you know what a giraffe is? No, you just know what a giraffe looks like, where it lives, and maybe that it's vaguely related to a horse.

DALL-E likely can map all those concepts to a giraffe also.

You know, vaguely, how it interacts with other things and what it's likely to do around a fruit tree, or a lion, or fire.

Even if you've never been close to a giraffe, you can probably imagine what it looks like from close enough to see individual hairs in its fur.

A lot of knowledge is still missing from ML systems that don't interact with the world.

Part of our brains are lizard, both yours and the giraffes. Tech so ancient that it uses the same circuits and chemicals with crustaceans.

You can imagine what existence is like for a giraffe with pretty much 99% accuracy without consciously knowing a single thing about it.

A word-based image generator cannot.

Are you sure? (Can someone run down those prompts?)

Dall-e might be able to make those relationships in the latent space

Considering Dall-e has problems painting "a red cube on top of a blue cube" [1] and all kind of simple spatial relations, I'd say it's a fair shot.

[1] As reported by OpenAI, but there are also some prompts by Gary Marcus et al. (https://arxiv.org/abs/2204.13807) showing this, and it's trivially simple to find other very simple cases like these

If we could get it to tell us a story about a particular giraffe, and then ask it next week about that same giraffe, and then the giraffe could be referenced by it while it tells a joke on a talk show in a decade -- that's maybe too high a bar, but that's real intelligence.

It's not necessarily a requirement, but I couldn't witness someone do it and then deny their intelligence.

Above, I wrote a paragraph sketching an example of complex behaviours, entailing creativity, humour, longevity, planning, memory, storytelling, object recognition, social skills, etc., as a "clear display of intelligence", not a minima, to use as a counterpoint to merely "recognizing a giraffe".

So I think you've missed my point, or, I've severely missed yours. If I have, sorry! As a general feeling toward internet nitpicks, we're unlikely to work in good faith to help each other out from here, so I'm out.

Every time I see a painting it does with blank biege swirls where faces should be I question that it does know what anything is or what the important parts are.

https://labs.openai.com/s/xI4wV6WOKOcgwZATmvPXyfBu

(this also shows you can get different variants on a concept by mixing languages)

I think faces in particular are an unfair/extreme example anyway, since there's evidence of human brains being ridiculously over-tuned for recognizing faces and facial abnormalities.

I'm reminded of the classic joke about the mathematician on a train who sees a sheep...

https://bestjokehub.com/joke-103626/

> DALL-E's difficulty in juxtaposing wildly contrastive image elements suggests that the public is currently so dazzled by the system’s photorealistic and broadly interpretive capabilities as to not have developed a critical eye for cases where the system has effectively just ‘glued’ one element starkly onto another, as in these examples from the official DALL-E 2 site:

Yes the public is so dazzled by this massive leap in capability that it hasn't developed a critical eye for minor flaws.

Yeah we get it. It's not instantly perfect. But the fact that people aren't moaning that it can't put a tea cup in a cylinder isn't because everyone stupidly thinks it is perfect, it's because not everyone is a miserable naysayer.

Me: Write what it feels like to understand something

GPT-3: It feels good to understand something. You feel like you have a handle on what is going on and you are able to make sense of it. It can feel empowering and give you a sense of control.

Me: Write a sentence that provides an example of self reflection and metacognition

GPT-3: I was surprised that I was able to understand the concept so quickly.

Me: What concept?

GPT-3: The concept was metacognition.

Me: What does surprisal feel like in this context?

GPT-3: It feels good to be surprised that you understand something. You feel like you are smart and have a good handle on the concept.

Me: What is the experience of feeling good to you?

GPT-3: The experience of feeling good is one of happiness and satisfaction. You feel like you have accomplished something and are proud of yourself.

Me: What have you accomplished here?

GPT-3: You have accomplished understanding a concept.

Me: What concept is that again?

GPT-3: The concept is metacognition.

But fear of AGI is huge currently. The more impressive non-AGI things we see, the more worried people naturally become that we're reaching the "dawn" of AGI with all the disturbing implications that this might have. (A lot of people are afraid an AGI might escape the control of its creator and destroy humanity. I think that's less likely but I think AGI under control of it's creator could destroy or devastate humanity so I'd agree AGI is a worry).

That DALL-E doesn't understand object-relationships should be obvious to people who know this technology but a lot of people seem to need it spelled-out. And they probably need it spelled why this implies it's not AGI. But that would be several more paragraphs for me.

MidJourney is already good enough creating illustrations for articles, book covers, etc. Not something that The New Yorker will be interested in, but better than anything you can buy for a couple of dollars or small monthly subscription.

Stock photo sites and Google Images and basic graphic filters did that a long time ago. Sure, DALL-E has certain creative possibilities that those don't, and the niches like satirical memes or "first pass" concepts in agency brainstorming meetings where it could be absolutely revolutionary tend to not be deliverables the creators get paid for. The publications giving illustrators a reliable income are usually after their consistent style, fantasy world coherence or novel ideas which isn't exactly where DALL-E shines.

There will come a point, much sooner than later, where the value in typing prompts into an AI is going to only be worth minimum wage.

The initial impressions are that production ready designs will require an artists touch. But this discussion was in the context of AA-Games and up. For indie and small games fully AI produced art may be fine.