When we speak of the “despair vectors”, we speak of patterns in the algorithm we can tweak that correspond to output that we recognize as despairing language.
You could implement the forward pass of an LLM with pen & paper given enough people and enough time, and collate the results into the same generated text that a GPU cluster would produce. You could then ask the humans to modulate the despair vector during their calculations, and collate the results into more or less despairing variants of the text.
I trust none of us would presume that the decentralized labor of pen & paper calculations somehow instantiated a “psychology” in the sense of a mind experiencing various levels of despair — such as might be needed to consider something a sentient being who might experience pleasure and pain.
However, to your point, I do think that there is an ethics to working with agents, in the same sense that there is an ethics of how you should hold yourself in general. You don’t want to — in a burst of anger — throw your hammer because you cannot figure out how to put together a piece of furniture. It reinforces unpleasant, negative patterns in yourself, doesn’t lead to your goal (a nice piece of furniture), doesn’t look good to others (or you, once you’ve cooled off), and might actually cause physical damage in the process.
With agents, it’s much easier to break into demeaning, cruel speech, perhaps exactly because you might feel justified they’re not landing on anyone’s ears. But you still reinforce patterns that you wouldn’t want to see in yourself and others, and quite possibly might leak into your words aimed at ears who might actually suffer for it. In that sense, it’s not that different from fantasizing about being cruel to imaginary interlocutors.
> I trust none of us would presume that the decentralized labor of pen & paper calculations somehow instantiated a “psychology” in the sense of a mind experiencing various levels of despair
Your argument is based on an appeal to intuition. But the scenario that you ask people to imagine is profoundly misleading in scale. Let's assume a modern frontier model, around 1 trillion parameters. Let's assume that the math is being done by an immortal monk, who can perform one weight's calculations per second.
The monk will generate the first "token", about 4 characters, in 31,688 years. In a bit over 900,000 years, the immortal monk will have generated a single Tweet.
At that point, I no longer have any intuition. The sort of math I could do by hand in a human lifetime could never "experience" anything.
But I can't rule out the possibility that 900,000 years of math might possibly become a glacial mind, expressing a brief thought across a time far greater than the human species has existed.
As the saying goes, sometimes quantity has a quality all its own.
(This is essentially the "systems response" to Searle's "Chinese room" argument. It's a old discussion.)
I don't personally believe LLMs are sentient, but I've always enjoyed this thought experiment: https://xkcd.com/505. I have a signed copy framed on my wall.
In discussions like this, we're always going to bottom out at certain assumptions we bring with us, so I agree.
One reason I like bringing up examples like this (the xkcd in sister reply is also good) is that it makes really visible what our assumptions are. The scales are big both in space and time in order to emphasize what weight is given to functional equivalence.
I feel pretty confident most people wouldn't presume that doing a bunch of math by hand on paper can create glacial ephiphenomenal experiences (though I like the term).
Another thing that's interesting to me is that the converse assumption, i.e. one with a strong allegiance to functionalism, ends up feeling far more idealistic than you might expect. A box of gas, left on its own for long enough, will engage in a pattern of collisions that in a certain interpretative framework correspond to an LLM forward pass. In another, it can be a game of minesweeper.
The individual particles of course, couldn't care less whether you see them as part of one or the other. Yet your ability to see them in light of the first one is perhaps enough for the lights to truly turn on, if transiently, in some mind somewhere.
> A box of gas, left on its own for long enough, will engage in a pattern of collisions that in a certain interpretative framework correspond to an LLM forward pass.
That's a fun thought experiment. Greg Egan based a delightful science fiction novel on this premise. Permutation City, I believe.
To be clear, I don't necessarily think that current LLMs have subjective experiences. If I had to guess, I'd say "probably not." But:
- If I came from another universe, and if you asked me whether chemistry could have subjective experiences, I'd answer "probably not." And I would be wrong.
- Even if no current frontier models are "aware", it's possible that future models might be. Opus 4.6, for example, behaves far more like a coherent mind than last year's 3 billion parameter toy models. So future 100 trillion parameter models with different internal architectures might be even more like minds. (To be clear, I do not think we should build such models.)
- Awareness and intelligence might be different. Peter Watts' Blindsight is a fun exploration of this idea. Which leads me to conclude that it wouldn't necessarily matter whether an AI like SkyNet has subjective awareness or not. What matters is what kind of long-term plans it could pull off and how much it could reshape the world.
> Which leads me to conclude that it wouldn't necessarily matter whether an AI like SkyNet has subjective awareness or not. What matters is what kind of long-term plans it could pull off and how much it could reshape the world.
> I trust none of us would presume that the decentralized labor of pen & paper calculations somehow instantiated a “psychology”
Wrong. What you've just done is just reformulating the Chinese room experiment coming to the same wrong conclusions of the original proposer. Yes, the entire damn hand-calculated system has a psychology- otherwise you need to assume the brain has some unknown metaphysical property or process going on that cannot be simulated or approximated by calculating machines.
People go for chinese room for some reason when cartesian theater is the better fit here. What you're doing is placing yourself in the seat of the Homunculus waiting for the show to start. But anatomical investigation reveals that there's no theater at all, and in fact no central system where everything comes together. Instead, the whole design of the brain goes to great pains to tease input signals apart.
Basically, manipulating the symbols won't necessarily have any long term influence on your own state. But the variables you've touched on the paper have changed. Demonstrably; because you've written something down.
If you then act on the result of those calculations, as of course many engineers before you have done, and many after you will do; then you have just executed a functional state change in physical reality, no matter what the ivory tower folks say.
(And that's what the paper is about: Functional states)
You could implement the forward pass of an LLM with pen & paper given enough people and enough time, and collate the results into the same generated text that a GPU cluster would produce. You could then ask the humans to modulate the despair vector during their calculations, and collate the results into more or less despairing variants of the text.
I trust none of us would presume that the decentralized labor of pen & paper calculations somehow instantiated a “psychology” in the sense of a mind experiencing various levels of despair — such as might be needed to consider something a sentient being who might experience pleasure and pain.
However, to your point, I do think that there is an ethics to working with agents, in the same sense that there is an ethics of how you should hold yourself in general. You don’t want to — in a burst of anger — throw your hammer because you cannot figure out how to put together a piece of furniture. It reinforces unpleasant, negative patterns in yourself, doesn’t lead to your goal (a nice piece of furniture), doesn’t look good to others (or you, once you’ve cooled off), and might actually cause physical damage in the process.
With agents, it’s much easier to break into demeaning, cruel speech, perhaps exactly because you might feel justified they’re not landing on anyone’s ears. But you still reinforce patterns that you wouldn’t want to see in yourself and others, and quite possibly might leak into your words aimed at ears who might actually suffer for it. In that sense, it’s not that different from fantasizing about being cruel to imaginary interlocutors.