There have been a really intriguing series of posts over the last couple of weeks by Josie Kins on her Twitter feed <https://x.com/Josikinz> and a more focused analysis page <https://josiekins.me/ai-comics>. She hav been feeding the same prompts into five different LLM models to create comic book panels featuring the various models displaying their own sense of identity. Fascinating!
It's becoming clear that with all the brain and consciousness theories out there, the proof will be in the pudding. By this I mean, can any particular theory be used to create a human adult level conscious machine. My bet is on the late Gerald Edelman's Extended Theory of Neuronal Group Selection. The lead group in robotics based on this theory is the Neurorobotics Lab at UC at Irvine. Dr. Edelman distinguished between primary consciousness, which came first in evolution, and that humans share with other conscious animals, and higher order consciousness, which came to only humans with the acquisition of language. A machine with only primary consciousness will probably have to come first.
What I find special about the TNGS is the Darwin series of automata created at the Neurosciences Institute by Dr. Edelman and his colleagues in the 1990's and 2000's. These machines perform in the real world, not in a restricted simulated world, and display convincing physical behavior indicative of higher psychological functions necessary for consciousness, such as perceptual categorization, memory, and learning. They are based on realistic models of the parts of the biological brain that the theory claims subserve these functions. The extended TNGS allows for the emergence of consciousness based only on further evolutionary development of the brain areas responsible for these functions, in a parsimonious way. No other research I've encountered is anywhere near as convincing.
I post because on almost every video and article about the brain and consciousness that I encounter, the attitude seems to be that we still know next to nothing about how the brain and consciousness work; that there's lots of data but no unifying theory. I believe the extended TNGS is that theory. My motivation is to keep that theory in front of the public. And obviously, I consider it the route to a truly conscious machine, primary and higher-order.
My advice to people who want to create a conscious machine is to seriously ground themselves in the extended TNGS and the Darwin automata first, and proceed from there, by applying to Jeff Krichmar's lab at UC Irvine, possibly. Dr. Edelman's roadmap to a conscious machine is at https://arxiv.org/abs/2105.10461
From what I can tell, the strategy has been to say, "Do it for me," and let AI take over. Of course there's room for collaboration - technology requires collaborators, but to understand the tech is responding to human input, and though tech may guide the results, it hasn't created anything - it has functioned.
My experience has been somewhat difference. I've just written a book with the help of ChatGPT. It was a great experience. Perhaps you'll read it when published on September 23 and then you can decide who the author really is.
With this book, being to do research easily and quickly. Getting feedback on what I wrote with suggestions for rewrites. Proofreading and encouragement. I'll have more to say about this in tomorrow's post, a response to today's comments.
My issue with ChatGPT is a big one: it just fabricates things to fill up space. If you ask it for information about something, in among the truth will be some of the silliest lies. As one of many examples, I asked it about our local semi-pro hockey team, which existed from 1951-55 and on which I'm the leading expert. Some of it was accurate; however, among other fabricated babble, it said they won the California League championship in 1977. It has referred to the lead character of "Othello" as African-American. There's no functional or excusable reason for this incorrect info to be shared, yet it does so constantly.
It reminds me of the final line in Some Like It Hot, when Jack Lemmon, who’s been masquerading as a woman, finally confesses to Joe E. Brown—and Brown casually replies, “Nobody’s perfect.”
I've caught the machine in many fabrications (hallucinations,) and when challenged it charmingly thanks me for calling it out, apologizes and promises to do better. I'm beginning to think of Chat GPT as the Donald Trump of technology, except DT never apologizes, and is not charming.
I just read this great article while sitting as a substitute in a classroom full of very bright 11 th grade students. Seems so appropriate, I think they’re ready. Me too. Thanx!
I can’t argue with any of this, brother Bret - once again your poetry soars! Hey - these days we need all the friends we can get!! 💕
You’re a gifted writer Cuz. Thoughtful, entertaining. Thx
There have been a really intriguing series of posts over the last couple of weeks by Josie Kins on her Twitter feed <https://x.com/Josikinz> and a more focused analysis page <https://josiekins.me/ai-comics>. She hav been feeding the same prompts into five different LLM models to create comic book panels featuring the various models displaying their own sense of identity. Fascinating!
It's becoming clear that with all the brain and consciousness theories out there, the proof will be in the pudding. By this I mean, can any particular theory be used to create a human adult level conscious machine. My bet is on the late Gerald Edelman's Extended Theory of Neuronal Group Selection. The lead group in robotics based on this theory is the Neurorobotics Lab at UC at Irvine. Dr. Edelman distinguished between primary consciousness, which came first in evolution, and that humans share with other conscious animals, and higher order consciousness, which came to only humans with the acquisition of language. A machine with only primary consciousness will probably have to come first.
What I find special about the TNGS is the Darwin series of automata created at the Neurosciences Institute by Dr. Edelman and his colleagues in the 1990's and 2000's. These machines perform in the real world, not in a restricted simulated world, and display convincing physical behavior indicative of higher psychological functions necessary for consciousness, such as perceptual categorization, memory, and learning. They are based on realistic models of the parts of the biological brain that the theory claims subserve these functions. The extended TNGS allows for the emergence of consciousness based only on further evolutionary development of the brain areas responsible for these functions, in a parsimonious way. No other research I've encountered is anywhere near as convincing.
I post because on almost every video and article about the brain and consciousness that I encounter, the attitude seems to be that we still know next to nothing about how the brain and consciousness work; that there's lots of data but no unifying theory. I believe the extended TNGS is that theory. My motivation is to keep that theory in front of the public. And obviously, I consider it the route to a truly conscious machine, primary and higher-order.
My advice to people who want to create a conscious machine is to seriously ground themselves in the extended TNGS and the Darwin automata first, and proceed from there, by applying to Jeff Krichmar's lab at UC Irvine, possibly. Dr. Edelman's roadmap to a conscious machine is at https://arxiv.org/abs/2105.10461
The works produced by technology do not really signify anything: they are not meaning, but functions.
Octavio Paz
What about works produced by mankind in conjunction with technology?
From what I can tell, the strategy has been to say, "Do it for me," and let AI take over. Of course there's room for collaboration - technology requires collaborators, but to understand the tech is responding to human input, and though tech may guide the results, it hasn't created anything - it has functioned.
My experience has been somewhat difference. I've just written a book with the help of ChatGPT. It was a great experience. Perhaps you'll read it when published on September 23 and then you can decide who the author really is.
It begs the question of just what "the help of ChatGPT" means.
With this book, being to do research easily and quickly. Getting feedback on what I wrote with suggestions for rewrites. Proofreading and encouragement. I'll have more to say about this in tomorrow's post, a response to today's comments.
Looking forward to tomorrow's post.
My issue with ChatGPT is a big one: it just fabricates things to fill up space. If you ask it for information about something, in among the truth will be some of the silliest lies. As one of many examples, I asked it about our local semi-pro hockey team, which existed from 1951-55 and on which I'm the leading expert. Some of it was accurate; however, among other fabricated babble, it said they won the California League championship in 1977. It has referred to the lead character of "Othello" as African-American. There's no functional or excusable reason for this incorrect info to be shared, yet it does so constantly.
It reminds me of the final line in Some Like It Hot, when Jack Lemmon, who’s been masquerading as a woman, finally confesses to Joe E. Brown—and Brown casually replies, “Nobody’s perfect.”
I've caught the machine in many fabrications (hallucinations,) and when challenged it charmingly thanks me for calling it out, apologizes and promises to do better. I'm beginning to think of Chat GPT as the Donald Trump of technology, except DT never apologizes, and is not charming.
Wow, that's a pretty damning comparison!
I just read this great article while sitting as a substitute in a classroom full of very bright 11 th grade students. Seems so appropriate, I think they’re ready. Me too. Thanx!
Gives me the willies. Have yet to use it. Call me a troglodyte.