It is too early to tell. I'm more optimistic that humans will shape the outcome they want ultimately, but that will come with bumps in the road. We know that the human experience has been getting better overall than worse in terms of living standards if that doesn't give you some hope. I would also add that individual expression given the various platforms to express it, is also more empowering than ever.
The images remind me of one of my dreams where logic and reasoning are thrown out and the pure gist of the thing is taken. I wonder if it is because it is built with vector operations and calculus to determine the closest match or fuzzy matches for essentially everything it eventually determines sans cognition, things would tend to be more fuzzy or quasi-close but not quite there. Very entertaining post.
I have my own api key as well but not with DALL-E 2 access just yet but seems similar in terms of prompting text in stages to get what you want. It feels kind of like negotiating with it in some way.
A lot of dreams scenery seems to throw logic and reasoning out of the window. Even small sensory inputs can make a huge difference to a dream sequence. And in many case they don't make sense even in the context of the dream.
I haven't personally experienced any hallucinations myself, but some DALL-E images seem awfully familiar to what some people describe.
I know that comparisons between brains and machine learning (including neural networks) are superficial at best, but I still wonder if DALL-E is mimicking, in its own way, a portion of our larger brain processing 'pipeline'.
Spot on, like the more basic part of a raw dream feed without rhyme or reason. Maybe even laying the groundwork for an experience architecture's input when that day finally comes, who knows.
first thing I noticed was that it had no distinct features of a basketball. looks more like a bowling ball with the swirly things on it. Kind of adds to your dream thought.
idk I think this is a red herring. You have to ensure the technology itself isn't so susceptible to hacking. Gmail goes a long way to do this and Google is a technology company that helps other companies with their tech. Hmm, I wonder who can help?
Atoms configured in a certain way produce the rich behavior of awareness and agency that we can observe in humans and other animals. This awareness and agency seems similar enough to our own behavior that we associate our internal experience to be similar as well. This internal experience we assume exists can be called "consciousness".
Based on the above definition of consciousness...
Atoms by themselves cannot be observed to have consciousness. In addition, there seems to be many more configurations of atoms that do not produce the behavior of consciousness.
However, it seems reasonable to assume that one day, we could arrange atoms in a specific way to produce consciousness from an atom-based computer system.
It feels like we are moving closure to producing the behavior of consciousness but I don't know about the efforts underway to produce the internal experience of it.
Finally to the questions.
- Is there efforts to produce some sense of self or internal dialog?
- Similar to how hand coding image recognition didn't work, maybe then the design itself of consciousness exceeds our ability... could we indirectly use AI/ML to build consciousness?
>> it seems reasonable to assume that one day, we could arrange atoms in a specific way to produce consciousness from an atom-based computer system.
There is no evidence for this. It does not seem reasonable to me at all. Internal dialog is not consciousness.
Many of the people who discuss consciousness at length do not need or simply do not engage in any internal dialog at all.
We will never 'build' consciousness. It is not possible. Consciousness comes from a source outside of our realm of experience as a gift. It does not come from the micro or small things (though it is entwined with them and everything), but from the macro, that which is above all.
It's a little unreasonable to expect a speculative statement about what might happen in the future to have evidence at the present time.
> We will never 'build' consciousness. It is not possible. Consciousness comes from a source outside of our realm of experience as a gift. It does not come from the micro or small things (though it is entwined with them and everything), but from the macro, that which is above all.
And yet there is even less evidence of any of this.
You cannot have a measure of consciousness in the same way that you cannot have a measure of anger. You can only possibly see its effects, and maybe not even that. But you can experience it.
Cheap and harmless infrared coupled with ML imaging is being worked on by companies I know of that can deeply see into the brain with micron-level precision and without the need of expensive MRI or CAT Scan room-filling equipment (OpenWater and Neurable for example). This tech could eventually be turned into a phone app or similar cheap device that we could directly train our emotional state on. The app would see our various emotions and degrees of intensity as it happens. That is entirely different if we can both experience our emotions and also see them directly confirmed by an app in real time. This helps take the 3rd person observation problem of consciousness into 1st person. That still doesn't solve the problem of knowing an artificial consciousness is actually experiencing things but at least its a step closure to understanding it.
This implies that consciousness is some sort of “magic”, not obeying the laws of the physical universe as we know them. I’m not willing to completely discount this idea. However, it seems likely that both mammals and birds all have this magic. It’s pretty wide spread. Why assume that humans can never figure it how it works, and replicate it?
As far as most people are concerned, it may as well be magic. It certainly doesn’t lend itself to understanding in the general sense. We must explore wholeheartedly and with integrity to even begin at comprehending the possibilities of connecting with it.
Even rocks and dead sticks have it. Some of us know how it works. I don’t claim to know, but I know more about it now than I did, let us say, some years ago. So it is like learning most any other complex thing, it is done over time. It can’t be replicated because it cannot be contained, and it is too expansive to be emulated or cloned with any sufficiency to have any substantial meaning.
I think Tom Hanks was in a film where he believed a volleyball was a person at some point in his journey where things weren't going so well. He would talk to it and it talked back (in his mind). We knew it was a volleyball and not a person. We know everything is not a person. If we said everything was a person, then it kind of doesn't make sense at that point to use that word. We should just use the word "everything". We would have to have another name for person that meant a person. It's just easier to call it "person".
What I mean by consciousness is more like how some chatbots (fake it) and animals demonstrate it (like us and dogs etc). Person's in a brain-lock situation even have activity that can be sensed by machinery and produce cursor movements on a screen where they can answer questions so they can demonstrate consciousness. That's more what I mean. Maybe I need to call it...sentience?
So far, rocks and sticks can't do that, but if this text is also conscious as its some magnetic charges on some discs somewhere, then I may be offending it.
Meaning rather, if atoms can produce consciousness, then why can't a computer system based on atoms produce consciousness? I don't see a reason why not. It may be beyond our capability but physics should permit it.
You could tell the difference in that the AI pronounced "Hussars" correctly where as the human reader did not. Without adding in our human error, our AI-trained version will be the more educated one for certain going forward.
I have found that knowing the system is the most important thing over anything else. You end up being less wrong and have fantastic suggestions to the group on the direction and purpose of things or catch those edge cases when something is suggested or comes up that others don't know the consequences of or how it all connects together. This is where true value lies.
That sounds effective but I wouldn't want to work there. I do pair programming but on an as-needed basis. I find it very effective in short focused bursts but I couldn't imagine doing it all day. I would go insane.
If this is true or not, I had a situation in my past where I was developing an ecommerce API as a business that had both web and backend. Basically, it made integrations take a day instead of 3-4 months. I hired some offshore developers to use my API to setup for new clients, effectively making a killing as I could still charge quite a lot for this specific integration and yet undercut all the competition. Long story short, my API code was stolen from under me by the offshore people I hired and I subsequently was made obsolete in my business model. I did not know how to prove this or go forward with litigation. Anyways, that's in my past but kind of a reverse way of screwing yourself.
