this post was submitted on 02 Mar 2025
168 points (89.3% liked)

Technology

63671 readers
4694 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related content.
  3. Be excellent to each other!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
  10. Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.

Approved Bots


founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Womble 3 points 1 day ago (2 children)

So where does it end? Slugs, mites, krill, bacteria, viruses? How do you draw a line that says free will this side of the line, just mechanics and random chance this side of the line?

I just dont find it a particularly useful concept.

[–] CheeseNoodle 1 points 14 hours ago (1 children)

I'd say it ends when you can't predict with 100% accuracy 100% of the time how an entity will react to a given stimuli. With current LLMs if I run it with the same input it will always do the same thing. And I mean really the same input not putting the same prompt into chat GPT twice and getting different results because there's an additional random number generator I don't have access too.

[–] Womble 1 points 7 hours ago (1 children)

So if I modify an LLM to have true randomness embedded within it (e.g. using a true random number generator based on radioactive decay ) does that then have free will?

[–] CheeseNoodle 1 points 3 hours ago* (last edited 3 hours ago)

So I'd go with no at the moment because I can easily get an LLM to contradict itself repeatedly in increcibly obvious ways.

I had a long ass post but I think it comes down to that we don't know what conciousness or self awareness even are and just kind of collectively agree upon it when we think we see it, sort of like how morality is pretty much a mutable group consensus.

The only way I think we could be truly sure would be to stick it in a simulated environment and see how it reacts over a few thousand simulated years to figure out wether its one of the following:

  • Chinese room: The potential AI in question just keeps dying because despite seeming intelligent when prompted with training data it has no ability to function when its not spoon-fed the required information in advance. (I think current LLMs are here given my initial statement in this post).
  • Animal: It survives but never really advances beyond figuring out the behaviours required for survival, its certainly concious at this point but works more like a dog where it can follow commands and carry out tasks but has no true understanding of the meaning behind them.
  • Person: It starts seeking out information in ways not immediately neccesary for its survival and basically does what we did with the whole tool thing and speculative reasoning skills, if it invents an equivelent to writing then we can be pretty damn certain its human level and not more like corvids (tools) or ants (agriculture)

Now personally I think that test is likely impractical so we're probably going to default to its concious when it can convince the majority of people that its concious for a sustained period.... So I guess it has free will when it can start or at least spark a large grass roots civil rights movement?

[–] Botzo 1 points 19 hours ago (1 children)

Why don't they have free will?

[–] Womble 2 points 15 hours ago

If viruses have free will when they are machines made out of rna which just inject code into other cells to make copies of themselves then the concept is meaningless (and also applies to computer programs far simpler than llms).