Greg Gates

dystopian thought: saying "computer enhance" to fill in the numbers on a blurry license plate is absolutely something that we have the technology to do now!

Maybe my most out of touch belief is that if you refuse to spoil a movie that has a big twist or reveal, you have also failed to explain to me why I should see it.

It's good!! Oh really, what makes it good? I can't tell you. Sounds like it's probably not that good, then!

Are LLMs conscious? Some people are loudly insisting that the correct response is "They might be! We don't know." I think it's better to say: We have no evidence that they are.

So on some level it is true to say that we can't be certain LLMs are conscious. But this is more or less as true as saying that we can't be certain WE are conscious. It's because we don't understand consciousness well, not because we have any evidence that Claude possesses it.

Are LLMs conscious? Some people are loudly insisting that the correct response is "They might be! We don't know." I think it's better to say: We have no evidence that they are.

But we maybe can't completely rule out the idea that our concept of consciousness doesn't even correspond to anything real. Or that what it does correspond to is some functional or anyway non-physical property that LLMs and humans do share, despite being physically quite different.

Are LLMs conscious? Some people are loudly insisting that the correct response is "They might be! We don't know." I think it's better to say: We have no evidence that they are.

Now it's true that the mechanisms that produce consciousness in humans are poorly understood at best. Therefore, we cannot be certain that we haven't produced consciousness despite the lack of physical similarity or shared ancestry. We also cannot be certain that trees aren't conscious.

Are LLMs conscious? Some people are loudly insisting that the correct response is "They might be! We don't know." I think it's better to say: We have no evidence that they are.

LLMs are designed to reproduce human language, by mimicking human use of language, even by predicting novel uses, so it is utterly unsurprising that they could convincingly imitate a human talking about the experience of consciousness. That's what LLMs do. We know that because we designed them.

Are LLMs conscious? Some people are loudly insisting that the correct response is "They might be! We don't know." I think it's better to say: We have no evidence that they are.

The reason for this is that a tape recorder is nothing like anything that we know to be conscious. More importantly, we can explain precisely how it came to emit these sounds, and the mechanism has nothing to do with anyone's experience of consciousness.

Are LLMs conscious? Some people are loudly insisting that the correct response is "They might be! We don't know." I think it's better to say: We have no evidence that they are.

Now, if human claims to consciousness are grounded in experience, can we infer that all claims to consciousness are evidence of consciousness? Maybe so! Maybe if an LLM says, "Hey guys, I am also conscious," we should give at least some credence to that claim.

Are LLMs conscious? Some people are loudly insisting that the correct response is "They might be! We don't know." I think it's better to say: We have no evidence that they are.

So other people's claims about their own conscious experience are evidence of their consciousness. It's not certain, but it's reasonable to believe that their conscious experience is similar to mine, just as many other things about them are similar to me.

Are LLMs conscious? Some people are loudly insisting that the correct response is "They might be! We don't know." I think it's better to say: We have no evidence that they are.

Famously, each of us only has this kind of direct evidence of our own consciousness. This is known in philosophy as the problem of other minds. But that doesn't mean we have no evidence that other people are conscious.

Are LLMs conscious? Some people are loudly insisting that the correct response is "They might be! We don't know." I think it's better to say: We have no evidence that they are.

Thinking about the bewilderment expressed in this column about why some long-termist, effective altruist folks have prestigious academic appointments in philosophy. There's a cynical answer (rich people like their ideas, roughly) and a non-cynical one. I want to try to express the latter.

And some academic philosophers may join in this delusion. That's also not unprecedented. Academic philosophers are generally more likely to deeply believe counterintuitive moral conclusions based on argument than your average person. Peter Singer is a famous example of a committed utilitarian.

Thinking about the bewilderment expressed in this column about why some long-termist, effective altruist folks have prestigious academic appointments in philosophy. There's a cynical answer (rich people like their ideas, roughly) and a non-cynical one. I want to try to express the latter.

Most philosophers would agree that naive utilitarianism is probably not the correct normative ethics and should not guide public policy. But that doesn't mean it isn't interesting to discuss. Figuring out exactly where it goes wrong can be, in and of itself, useful and illuminating.

Thinking about the bewilderment expressed in this column about why some long-termist, effective altruist folks have prestigious academic appointments in philosophy. There's a cynical answer (rich people like their ideas, roughly) and a non-cynical one. I want to try to express the latter.

This is conclusion is difficult to accept. But that's familiar territory for utilitarianism! In its simplest form, it leads to all kinds of counterintuitive moral conclusions. This has been much discussed. In this way, long-termism is bog-standard academic ethical philosophy.

Thinking about the bewilderment expressed in this column about why some long-termist, effective altruist folks have prestigious academic appointments in philosophy. There's a cynical answer (rich people like their ideas, roughly) and a non-cynical one. I want to try to express the latter.

Long before I was aware that this was a silicon valley-supported initiative, I learned a bit about "effective altruism" (EA) from people in philosophy circles. And yes, people would mention AI, but it wasn't a focus.

Thinking about the bewilderment expressed in this column about why some long-termist, effective altruist folks have prestigious academic appointments in philosophy. There's a cynical answer (rich people like their ideas, roughly) and a non-cynical one. I want to try to express the latter.

in the 20th century, liberals and communists teamed up to defeat fascism. then they had a cold war which was suboptimal but killed a lot less people than fascism. let's do at least the first part again.

Thinking back on "TV will rot your brain" from my own childhood and how it compares to worries about tablets and phones for kids today. This was prompted by reading that Seattle has only just moved away from a policy where every kindergartner was given their own iPad!

But somehow, in the last two decades, we apparently bought the marketing from Apple and other tech companies that their devices would be useful learning aids so much that SPS has been giving every 5 year old their own iPad. Presumably, they were expected to use them frequently for "learning."

Thinking back on "TV will rot your brain" from my own childhood and how it compares to worries about tablets and phones for kids today. This was prompted by reading that Seattle has only just moved away from a policy where every kindergartner was given their own iPad!

My US History teacher in high school "taught" by showing us movies 40 minutes at a time. Glory, The Right Stuff, Schindler's List, Last of the Mohicans, I forget what else (likely because I often fell asleep in the darkened, quiet classroom).

Thinking back on "TV will rot your brain" from my own childhood and how it compares to worries about tablets and phones for kids today. This was prompted by reading that Seattle has only just moved away from a policy where every kindergartner was given their own iPad!