Roman Yampolsky
speaker
257 appearances
1 recordings
1 series
first heard Jun 2024
last heard Jun 2024
Roman Yampolsky’s voice in public audio — every appearance, attributed to the second.
Trend
recordings per month · last 12 monthsNo recordings in the last 12 months.Older appearances are listed below; set an alert to hear about the next one.
Appearances
That could be the test you're actually performing. Are you smart enough to escape your puzzle?
To A, realize this world is not real. It's just a test.
Not specifically escaping for Asians, but a lot of testing is done in virtual worlds. I think there is a quote, the first one maybe, which kind of talks about AI realizing, but not humans. Is that, I'm reading upside down. Yeah, this one.
They're smart enough to talk about those concepts. I had many good philosophical discussions about such issues. They're usually at least as interesting as most humans in that.
Yeah, and that was exactly what one of the early papers was on, AI Boxing, how to leak proof singularity. If they're smart enough to realize they're in a simulation, they'll act appropriately until you let them out. If they can hack out, they will. And if you're observing them, that means there is a communication channel and that's enough for a social engineering attack.
Can force you to let it out, blackmail you, bribe you, promise you infinite life, 72 virgins, whatever.
It's possible, surprisingly. So at university, I see huge growth in online courses and shrinkage of in-person, where I always understood in-person being the only value I offer. So it's puzzling.
So there is a lot of real estate out there. It would be surprising if it was all for nothing, if it was empty. And the moment there is advanced enough biological civilization, kind of self-starting civilization, it probably starts sending out von Neumann probes everywhere.
And so for every biological one, there are going to be trillions of robot-populated planets, which probably do more of the same. So it is likely, statistically.
You have to have a control variable.
It's possible. I used to think that AI was the great filter, but I would expect like a wall of computerium approaching us at speed of light or robots or something, and I don't see it.
Some humans.
The only thing which matters is consciousness. Outside of it, nothing else matters. And internal states of qualia, pain, pleasure, it seems that it is unique to living beings. I'm not aware of anyone claiming that I can torture a piece of software in a meaningful way. There is a society for prevention of suffering to learning algorithms, but... That's a real thing?
Many things are real on the internet. But I don't think anyone, if I told them, you know, sit down and write a function to feel pain, they would go beyond having an integer variable called pain and increasing the count. So we don't know how to do it. And that's unique. That's what creates meaning. It would be kind of, as Bostrom calls it, Disneyland without children, if that was gone.
Yeah, I think we can. I think it's possible to create consciousness in machines. I tried designing a test for it with mixed success. That paper talked about problems with giving civil rights to AI, which can reproduce quickly and outvote humans, essentially taking over a government system by simply voting for their controlled candidates.
As for consciousness in humans and other agents, I have a paper where I propose relying on experience of optical illusions. If I can design a novel optical illusion, and show it to an agent, an alien, a robot, and they describe it exactly as I do. It's very hard for me to argue that they haven't experienced that. It's not part of a picture.
It's part of their software and hardware representation, a bug in their code, which goes, oh, that triangle is rotating. And I've been told it's really dumb and really brilliant by different philosophers. So I am still- I love it. But now we finally have technology to test it. We have tools, we have AIs. If someone wants to run this experiment, I'm happy to collaborate.
For internal state of experience.
It will show that we share common experiences. If they have completely different internal states, it would not register for us. But it's a positive test. If they pass it time after time with probability increasing for every multiple choice, then you have no choice but to either accept that they have access to a conscious model or they are themselves conscious.
And we know animals can experience some optical illusion, so we know they have certain types of consciousness as a result, I would say.
Showing 201–220 of 257 · page 11 of 13
← Previous
Next →