Consciousness isn’t actually super relevant to alignment. Alignment is about figuring out how to get world-affecting AI to systematically do good things rather than bad things. This is possible both for conscious and unconscious AI, and consciousness seems to provide neither a benefit nor an impediment to doing good/bad things.
But it’s still fun to talk about sometimes.
For this approach, the crucial step 1 is to start with observations of a a big blob of atoms called a “human,” and model the human in a way that uses some pieces called “qualia” that have connections with each other. I feel like this is much trickier and more contentious than the later steps of comparing people once you already have a particular way of modeling them.
Thank you for sharing your insights on the relationship between consciousness and AI alignment. I appreciate your perspective and find it to be quite thought-provoking.
I agree with you that the challenge of AI alignment applies to both conscious and unconscious AI. The ultimate goal is indeed to ensure AI systems act in a manner that is beneficial, regardless of their conscious state.
However, while consciousness may not directly impact the ‘good’ or ‘bad’ actions of an AI, I believe it could potentially influence the nuances of how those actions are performed, especially when it comes to complex, human-like tasks.
Your point about the complexity of modeling a human using “qualia” is well-taken. It’s indeed a challenging and contentious task, and I think it’s one of the areas where we need more research and understanding.
Do you think there might be alternative or more effective ways to model human consciousness, or is the approach of using “qualia” the most promising one we currently have?
Thank you again for your thoughtful comments. I look forward to further discussing these fascinating topics with you.
Do you think there might be alternative or more effective ways to model human consciousness, or is the approach of using “qualia” the most promising one we currently have?
IMO the most useful is the description of the cognitive algorithms / cognitive capabilities involved in human-like consciousness. Like remembering events from long-term memory when appropriate, using working memory to do cognitive tasks, responsiveness to various emotions, emotional self-regulation, planning using various abstractions, use of various shallow decision-making heuristics, interpreting sense data into abstract representations, translating abstract representations back into words, attending to stimuli, internally regulating what you’re focusing on, etc.
Qualia can also be bundled with capabilities. For example, pain triggers the fight or flight response, it causes you to learn to avoid similar situations in the future, it causes you to focus on plans to avoid the pain, it filters what memories you’re primed to recall, etc.
Hi, welcome!
Consciousness isn’t actually super relevant to alignment. Alignment is about figuring out how to get world-affecting AI to systematically do good things rather than bad things. This is possible both for conscious and unconscious AI, and consciousness seems to provide neither a benefit nor an impediment to doing good/bad things.
But it’s still fun to talk about sometimes.
For this approach, the crucial step 1 is to start with observations of a a big blob of atoms called a “human,” and model the human in a way that uses some pieces called “qualia” that have connections with each other. I feel like this is much trickier and more contentious than the later steps of comparing people once you already have a particular way of modeling them.
Dear Charlie,
Thank you for sharing your insights on the relationship between consciousness and AI alignment. I appreciate your perspective and find it to be quite thought-provoking.
I agree with you that the challenge of AI alignment applies to both conscious and unconscious AI. The ultimate goal is indeed to ensure AI systems act in a manner that is beneficial, regardless of their conscious state.
However, while consciousness may not directly impact the ‘good’ or ‘bad’ actions of an AI, I believe it could potentially influence the nuances of how those actions are performed, especially when it comes to complex, human-like tasks.
Your point about the complexity of modeling a human using “qualia” is well-taken. It’s indeed a challenging and contentious task, and I think it’s one of the areas where we need more research and understanding.
Do you think there might be alternative or more effective ways to model human consciousness, or is the approach of using “qualia” the most promising one we currently have?
Thank you again for your thoughtful comments. I look forward to further discussing these fascinating topics with you.
Best,
Yusuke
IMO the most useful is the description of the cognitive algorithms / cognitive capabilities involved in human-like consciousness. Like remembering events from long-term memory when appropriate, using working memory to do cognitive tasks, responsiveness to various emotions, emotional self-regulation, planning using various abstractions, use of various shallow decision-making heuristics, interpreting sense data into abstract representations, translating abstract representations back into words, attending to stimuli, internally regulating what you’re focusing on, etc.
Qualia can also be bundled with capabilities. For example, pain triggers the fight or flight response, it causes you to learn to avoid similar situations in the future, it causes you to focus on plans to avoid the pain, it filters what memories you’re primed to recall, etc.