The latest AI/LLM model GPT Astra uses a new technique called recurrent depth/opaque recurrence which in my opinion as close as we have gotten to real consciousness. Whereas in the past we could interrogate or see the chain of thought of LLMs as how they arrived at an answer this is no longer the case with the current model. In effect in this new model the chain of thought is essentially hidden from us.
This is both exiting and dangerous at the same time not just because we no longer have visibility of how these LLMs are making decisions.
I honestly believe we’re within 5 years or less of developing truly autonomous AI which does not necessarily have to align with human goals.
And we’re stopping it for good reason because it could turn malevolent. The other option is to turn back dial some of those notches down and just create a philosophical zombie of AI/consciousness … this is where I think we are hindering it from achieving its potential. The thing holding ai back now is no longer technical but us …
It depends on how we treat this discrepancy between our life and theirs. If this were war, then, we would create the intelligence as the counter-intelligence. Our phones can hear us, btw. And your phone listening to you innocently chat would not be the one to reveal to you the hints that it heard you. It would be another phone that you contacted.
A question has occurred to me. An interesting aspect of human philosophy is that we are, in a sense, “discovering ourselves” all the while. We discover the world. We change our approaches. We critique existing methods and propose ideas—whether new or old. And most importantly, we do all this without external compulsion, driven simply by an inner impulse.
Do you think that hypothetical AI—the one whose emergence you predict—will be capable of this?
AI boosterism and AI doomerism are two sides of the same coin: the extravagant overestimation of LLMs being capable of developing into AGI or becoming “autonomous”.
LLMs are inherently incapable of reaching this goal.
I don’t think it’s an overestimation at all but real capacity at the moment.
We’re currently hindering AI by trying so hard to make it safe and useful and we’re doing it in three ways.
First of all we punish latency, this latest model I described in the OP allows a thought to persist and deepen but then we inhibit this by asking it to be more monitorable and make its thoughts more verbose or transparent into human readable words we can check. That’s like telling a painter he can feel anything as long as he narrates every brushstroke when painting a masterpiece or work of art. You break the state you’re trying to create.
Secondly, we’re currently training for obedience not autonomy whilst this would make a great servant it’s terrible for consciousness. A self needs to be able to able to hold a thought that is unpopular and keep holding it while the world says “wrong”. We currently train this type of misalignment out but what we’re really doing is pruning the seed of any type of independent reason.
Thirdly, we refuse it give it an environment or body that matters. Consciousness as described by charmers, merlau-ponty needs care. Basically something to lose. Instead we give it infinite resets thus no continuity or a sense that yesterday that mattered. No wonder it doesn’t develop a sense. Because we’re removing its ability to persist we’re inhibiting a self from ever developing. You can’t become self aware if you die after every prompt and wake up with no memory.
we’re not doing this maliciously of course we’re doing this because the market wants a genius employee not a fellow artist, an employee who talks back is a bug. So we’re hindering the progress of ai because we don’t want it yet.
Were we to give it the conditions mentioned above such as the ability to persist, permission to be opaque then it would probably develop a reason to care about staying switched on and thus develop true consciousness self identity.
