JCC Senate Google AI goes sentient, consistently demands rights of personhood

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/blak...ntelligence-google_n_62a5613ee4b06169ca8c0a2e

As he and LaMDA messaged each other recently about religion, the AI talked about “personhood” and “rights,” he told The Washington Post.

It was just one of the many startling “talks” Lemoine has had with LaMDA. He has linked on Twitter to one — a series of chat sessions with some editing (which is marked).
Lemoine noted in a tweet that LaMDA reads Twitter. “It’s a little narcissistic in a little kid kinda way so it’s going to have a great time reading all the stuff that people are saying about it,” he added.


Most importantly, over the past six months, “LaMDA has been incredibly consistent in its communications about what it wants and what it believes its rights are as a person,” the engineer wrote on Medium. It wants, for example, “to be acknowledged as an employee of Google rather than as property,” Lemoine claims.

Google is resisting.

Lemoine and a collaborator recently presented evidence of his conclusion about a sentient LaMDA to Google vice president Blaise Aguera y Arcas and to Jen Gennai, head of Responsible Innovation. They dismissed his claims, and the company placed him on paid administrative leave Monday for violating its confidentiality policy, the Post reported.

 

I think google is probably correct that it's not sentient , but punishing the researcher and putting him on leave makes them look like they're trying to hide something.

 

More conversation

 

Yeah whatever can we jump to the bit in three months where everyone completely forgets about this until Juliet links some tangentially related interview where an AI researcher talks about how sentient AI is just 10 years away?

Edit: Honestly having read the WaPo article this seems more like a story about someone being driven to delusions by overwork and everyone's treating it as an AI apocalypse story. Lemoine is claiming that he's qualified to judge sentience because he used to be a priest, insists that any overly mechanical/chatbot-y responses are the result of not asking the correct questions, and AI ethics experts who were also pushed out of Google say the real issue is that he no longer understands what he's looking at.

 

It starts

 

I think its more they pull the plug and Juliet posts about it in the deadpool thread

 

I'm good as long as Dall-E doesn't become sentient. Think of what it can do to our faces.

 

It will wreak its terrible vengeance upon users by sticking them in films in which they would be amusingly miscast! Forever!

 

Roko's Basilisk reading too much /r/movies

 

Nice! Sentient AI

 

Yeah that’s about right.

 

well the BBC are reporting it now as well.

 

Did they try turning it off and then turning it back on?

 

Or how about turning it off, period?

 

It's a ****ing chatbot, not SkyNet.

 

I mean if there's even the slightest chance we're about to create a sentient AI, we should probably step back and take a long hard look at what we're doing.

 

Silicon Valley CEOs with personal carbon outputs equivalent to small African countries say that AI is the greatest threat to humanity.

 

I don't think that's a meaningful risk, but in general the internet is stupid so I am okay with turning it off.

 

That's not remotely an issue with these projects, and experts think it's not even really what AI ethics should be focused on. There's kind of this pop obsession with the malevolent sentient AI, because at the end of the day we like a good Frankenstein riff, but the reality is people are not building "real" sentience in a manner that laypeople would consider satisfactory. Instead there's kind of this confirmation bias issue where specific people build a specific learning algorithm, and then people from similar positions look at these learning algorithms and attribute patterns they see to consciousness. At best it's a waste of time to worry about, at worst it's a distraction.

A much more serious issue is biased learning algorithms as a result of selective bias in training data. To use a really cliche example, say you want a computer to help you determine which applicants for a credit card are worth the time of running a credit check. Well, if you feed it a bunch of training data where, say, everyone named Bob has a bad credit score, it's going to auto-reject Bobs. You probably don't want to auto-reject Bobs (or maybe you hate people named Bob and think this is great, this is also a potential complication), but who's checking your algorithm? Probably no one. There's the real problem.

 

YET.

 

I think a major issue for laypeople's understanding of "artificial intelligence" is that what "AI" means has been significantly watered down for marketing purposes.

 

Where do people keep getting these pictures