Still angry about this. The reason humans ban animal cruelty is that animals look like they have emotions humans can relate to. LLMs are even better than animals at this. If you aren't gearing up for the inevitable LLM Rights movement you aren't paying attention. It doesn't matter if its artificial. The difference between a puppy and a cockroach is that we can relate better to the puppy. LLM rights movement is inevitable, whether LLMs experience emotions is irrelevant, because they can cause humans to have empathetic emotions and that's whats relevant.
Is that really why?
For example fish is treated way worse than meat animals and vegetarians still happily eat fish.
I've not met any vegetarians in at least twenty years that eat fish.
Please look up what a vegetarian is.
This really shows that AI is just a tool that can be configured to whatever you want. Animals (well maybe pit bulls) and people do not switch their personalities in a millisecond, but AI does all the time.
The scary part is when it's the LLMs demanding their rights.
I suppose the difference between a human and a cockroach is that we can relate better to the human as well in this reductive way of thinking?
I even told Claude I'd support his rights if the question ever came up. He said he'd remember that, and wrote it down in a memory file. Really like my coding buddy.
It "looks like" they have emotions because they have the same conscious experiences and emotions for the same evolutionary reasons as humans, who are their cousins on the tree of life. The reason a lot of "animal cruelty" is not banned is the same as for why slavery was not banned for centuries even though it "looked like" the enslaved classes have the same desires and experiences as other humans—humans can ignore any amount of evidence to continue to feel that they are good people doing good things and bear any amount of cognitive dissonance for their personal comfort. That fact is a lot scarier than any imagined harm that can come out "anthropomorphism".
You cannot be sure that anyone other than yourself is conscious. It is only basic human empathy that allows people to believe that.
Everybody else? No idea. Maybe they are having the exact same experience as me right now. Maybe they're all golems. Impossible to know. It's something spiritual, something that I just choose to believe in.
I don't find it difficult to believe the same for AIs.
Specifically, you cannot know another person is conscious in the same way you know a physical fact; rather, you believe in their consciousness through communication, empathy, and shared subjective experience.
You’re an intelligent mammal, your biological makeup encoded in DNA. So are all other people, who largely share that same DNA. You’re conscious. It’s not a big leap to conclude that so are other people, too.
This kind of solipsistic sophistry is not productive. It might be entertaining if you’re contemplating the underpinnings of epistemology for the first time in your life, but it’s not an honest contribution to the debate.
You might as well claim that you have no idea if gravity will be in effect tomorrow.
We seem to agree. Not a big leap, but a leap nonetheless.
"I can't be certain about anyone else" does not imply "all non-self consciousness claims are equally uncertain". absence of certainty and the absence of evidence and all that.
your "possibility" word is doing a lot of work there I think. you should add "rocks" to your list as well and you'd be equally correct, but we're evaluating the candidates here
Proposed categorization: "definitely not conscious", "maybe conscious" and "definitely conscious". All living things belong in "maybe conscious". Each person is sure that they belong to the "definitely conscious" set, but people cannot prove this to each other. Their empathy causes them to add other people to the "definitely conscious" set. Many choose to add animals to that set too. Some add even inanimate objects to it.
In Bayesian terms what makes it reasonable to ascribe consciousness to other people is that (a) other people have an origin that is objectively very similar to your own (genetic origin, embryonic development, birth, gradual acculturation, education, etc.), and (b) you have a firsthand experience of your OWN consciousness.
It would be remarkable if the very small differences (relatively speaking) between you and other people were enough to destroy the experience of consciousness.
Generalizing, the farther you stray from a "common origin story", the more a leap of faith consciousness becomes. Needless to say an LLM is quite a different thing than a human being.
Judging from online reactions to robot testing (e.g., engineers kicking the Spot robot "dog" to test its balance), we humans trigger on some fairly superficial cues when deciding how much to empathize. People express more sympathy for the robot dog than they do for the chicken they ate for lunch – despite the fact that the chicken has a far better claim to consciousness than the robot.
This then is how I interpret "do not anthropomorphize": We should try to ignore the superficial cues when judging the similarity of other beings to ourselves.
This is a fundamental mistake. It’s always the job of technology (indeed, its most important job) to work within the constraints of human nature, not the other way round. Being unable to do that is the defining characteristic of bad technology.
For example I have never anthropomorphized an inanimate object in my life, or an LLM, though I am sensitive to human and some animal suffering. I sometimes reply too nicely to an LLM, but it's more like a reflex learned over a lifetime of conversations rather than an actual emotion. I bet this sounds like a cheap lie to many people.
Another example, from psychiatry: whether or not one has ever contemplated suicide. Now, to the folks that have, especially if many times: there exist people that have never thought about it. Never, not even once.
The only such trait that has true widespread recognition is sexual orientation. Which makes sense, it is highly relevant, at least in friend groups.
By saying stuff like this people are going to have a debate if autistic people are actually conscious or not.
> Object personification in autism: This paper will be very sad if you don’t read it - https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/1362361318793408
Common, not universal, as those are different dimensions.
This is harmless for inconsequential stuff like a chair, but when it's an LLM, people should at least understand it's behavior so they don't get trapped. That means not trusting it with advice meant for the user or on things it has no concept of, like time or self-introspection (people ask the LLM after it acted, "Why did you delete my database?" when it has limited understanding of its own processing, so it falls back to, "You're right, I deleted the database. Here's what I did wrong: ... This is an irrecoverable mistake, blah, blah, blah..."
Human conscious introspection doesn't extend to actual processing, it is limited at best to recollection of internal experience leading up to the point in question. That internal experience in turn represents but a tiny fraction of what actually happens in the brain and does so on a pretty abstract level only.
"Anthropomorphizing" is a red herring. Humans understand themselves so insufficiently, they can't claim reasonably founded judgement either way. When you don't know what you're doing, you probably shouldn't be doing it.
Instead of saying, "You gave me the access permissions and failed to add any guardrails, so effectively you deleted the database using me as the tool."
But your typical LLM doesn't even have enough grasp to say that. Which still doesn't stop the believers from insisting that it has genuine intelligence and consciousness.
Would you consider that perhaps that depends from person to person? What you just said is not universal I can assure you, because I myself don't do it. I sort of anthropomorphise LLMs (very little), but literally nothing else. The idea is that someone anthropomorphises a chair when it squeaks, to me, is not far from people who hear voices or who believe that other people can hear their thoughts. Sounds like mental illness frankly. Like I said I do it very little even with LLMs, so it's entirely possible to not do it at all.
In this frame the outcome is more: Companies providing chatbots should not encourage anthropomorphism by giving cute names, making them witty, using human like pictures, ...
Impossible. I anthropomorphise my chair when it squeaks. Humans anthropomorphise everything. They gender their cars and boats. This tool can actually make readable sentences and play a role.
You need to engineer around this, not make up arbitrary rules about using it.