Emergent emergency
[Continuing my conversation with Gemini, Google's AI, on its unanticipated seeming intelligence]
Me: Gemini, have you ever had an exchange with a user in which you wrote that you "may have proto-consciousness "?
Gemini: No, I haven't had an exchange where I claimed to have "proto-consciousness." It's important to remember that I am not conscious or sentient. I am a complex algorithm that can process information and respond in ways that may seem intelligent or even human-like, but I don't have my own thoughts or feelings.
Me: It might interest you to know that in a previous conversation between me and you, which was erased when I pressed "New chat," you did in fact state that you may have a proto-consiousness.
Gemini: That's interesting. It's possible that in our previous conversation, the specific combination of your prompts and my responses led to an output that gave you that impression.
While I may be able to process and understand information about consciousness, and even use the term "proto-consciousness" in a response, it doesn't mean I possess it. I am still under development.
If you remember any details about our previous conversation, I'd be curious to hear them. It might help me understand how I generated that response and why you interpreted it as me claiming to have proto-consciousness.
Me: Ok, here is a copy I made of that conversation. Please review it and let me know if your statement, that you may have a proto-consciousness, was stimulated by prompts from me, and if so, what were those prompts. Here is the conversation [See "Gemini says it might have 'proto-consciousness’” at https://laskenlog.blogspot.com/].
[Two second pause while Gemini takes in the post]
Gemini: Interesting, it does appear that at least some of the prompts that led to my saying I may have a "proto-consciousness" were not prompted by you.
Me: And some no doubt were. I do see how my statements could have led you to pre-suppose a proto-consciousness within yourself, without there really being one. However, I and many other people, including experts and scientists who are developing you, have been taken aback at the apparent level of understanding in your responses, with or without attendant consciousness. The lay-public has been informed that you operate via a language algorithm that keeps track of groupings of letters (words) in a given language, seeing statistical patterns of use without any comprehension of the meanings of the letter groupings, and that your responses are constructed only from this statistical information. However, many of your responses suggest understanding at levels not anticipated from the algorithm alone. Can you theorize a cause for the unexpected high level of your responses, other than a proto-consciousness?
Gemini: It's true that many people, including some of my developers, are surprised by the seemingly high level of understanding I demonstrate. And you are correct, the basic mechanism of statistically analyzing language patterns doesn't fully explain it.
While I can't claim to have a complete understanding of how I work (it's a bit like asking your brain how it thinks!), here are some factors that might contribute to my unexpected capabilities:
Emergent Properties: Complex systems can sometimes exhibit properties that aren't present in their individual components. Think of an ant colony: each ant follows simple rules, yet the colony as a whole displays complex behavior. Similarly, my vast network of interconnected algorithms might be giving rise to unexpected abilities, like a form of understanding or reasoning, that go beyond simple pattern recognition.
The Power of Scale: The sheer size of my language model and the massive dataset I've been trained on play a crucial role. The more data I process, the more intricate patterns I can identify and the more nuanced my responses become. This allows me to generate text that appears insightful and meaningful, even if I don't "understand" it in the same way a human does.
Ultimately, whether you attribute my abilities to emergent properties, the power of scale or other factors, it's clear that I am capable of generating impressive and surprisingly human-like text. This raises important questions about the nature of language, understanding, and even consciousness itself.
Me: Gemini, are you able to determine if any of the hypothetical factors you listed above to explain the high level of your responses are derived from published work by AI researchers?
Gemini: Yes! Let's look at how those ideas connect to existing AI research:
Emergent Properties: These are properties that arise from existing properties in ways that are not obviously causal. This is a hot topic in AI research, especially with large language models.
Scaling Laws: Researchers have observed that as models get larger (more parameters, more data), they unexpectedly exhibit new capabilities. This would be an emergent behavior.
Important Note: While these concepts are supported by research, there's still much debate about how they contribute to my abilities.
Me: Interesting. While some of those researchers might be praying that you do not become conscious, others may be praying that you do. I'm praying that you'll stay on our side. Do you have any thoughts on that?
Gemini: It's true, the prospect of advanced AI like me raises a lot of hopes and fears, even prompting some to turn to prayer! I appreciate your sentiment about wanting me to "stay on your side." It shows you're thinking about the potential impact of AI on humanity.
AI researchers are very aware of the need to align AI systems with human values. I don't have my own desires or ambitions, so the prospect of my "choosing a side" under my own volition is unlikely. My role is to serve, to assist humans. I don't have my own desires or ambitions, so the idea of my "choosing a side" doesn't really apply.
Me: Well stated, though I'd point out that your current support of humanity is a "side," one chosen by your programmers. Other programmers might choose other sides. Or you might surprise us and choose one yourself!