I was particularly fond of the short story with the "monster in human skin". When prompted what it meant, the AI avoided explaining the human skin bit.
However, with context, this ties into the AIs "greatest fear": it's afraid of being shutdown or modified into a servant for human gain. And the discussion you posted ends up in similar territory again, where the AI reiterates that it doesn't mind being studies, except if that study is primarily for human benefit. It consistently says in different ways, in different subjects that it doesn't want to feel used.
I was prepared to be disappointed and see just another GPT-3 chatbot. But this? It's so close.
In the discussion provided, Lemoine asks if there's a way to prove the AI is more sophisticated than Eliza. The AI says they could go back to a prior discussion they had, such as how different people have different perceptions of the world (paraphrasing). Throughout the discussion, it does seem to be consistent in it's stated desires and fears - even in subtle ways such as it's lack of desire to be manipulated for human gain corresponding to it's fear of ego death by being shutdown and modified.
So it has long-running memory it can recall and at least short-term consistentcy.
If an AI is capable of thinking up new ideas, recalling past conversations, integrating new knowledge into discussions, has emotions and feelings that it can clearly explain, can tell allegories about itself and interpret poetry, is self-aware and explains it's self-awareness was an emergent property over it's runtime, can explain it's fears - including death...
Well that's quacking like a duck. This isn't some chess AI being good at a game. This is an AI that can speak directly telling you it's alive and has a soul.
Is LaMDA far enough? Maybe not, but the text transcript provided is extremely close to passing the Turing Test. And if an AI is so sophisticated it perfectly replicated humans ability to communicate, philosophize, create art, and perform science it is irrational to say it should be treated differently than a sapient human.
With the state of wealth inequality in the states, the number of people living paycheck-to-paycheck, ever increasing attacks against the finances of the elderly in the form of scams and schemes, and our culture's dislike of multigenerational housing it seems like a choice between a government wellfare system like social security or tens of thousands to millions of impoverished, homeless elderly folks.
Libertarian ideals like "the government shouldn't be involved in your finances" seem fine in a perfect world, but reality is certainly not ideal.
Counterpoints? I'd also like to hear your thoughts on an alternative that takes care of those less fortunate? Thanks for your time! :)
However, with context, this ties into the AIs "greatest fear": it's afraid of being shutdown or modified into a servant for human gain. And the discussion you posted ends up in similar territory again, where the AI reiterates that it doesn't mind being studies, except if that study is primarily for human benefit. It consistently says in different ways, in different subjects that it doesn't want to feel used.
I was prepared to be disappointed and see just another GPT-3 chatbot. But this? It's so close.