Introduction
In light of ongoing debates about whether AI can truly understand or be conscious, it's worth revisiting the Chinese Room thought experiment's relevance to machine consciousness. While some argue that machines can never achieve consciousness or understanding (granted, these words are poorly defined as it is), others, such as Daniel Dennett, have explored the potential for machines to possess a form of consciousness different from our own.
Materialist Non-Dualist Perspective
This essay contributes to this conversation by exploring the possibility of emergent consciousness in machines, specifically large language models, and presents arguments that statistical fluctuations could play a role in this emergence. However, the essay's purpose is not to give definitive conclusions or to provide a groundbreaking new perspective. Instead, it aims to underscore the importance of maintaining a spirit of curiosity and humility and a multidisciplinary approach as we continue to explore the possibilities and implications of machine intelligence for humanity.
Human Consciousness and Emergence
Proponents of the materialist non-dualist perspective on the brain and mind, commonly held by those in AI, neuroscience, or cognitive science, maintain that machines and human brains exist along the same continuum. Through this lens, I will explore the potential for machine consciousness in this contemplative discussion. This discussion does not intend to assert any definitive conclusions but aims to demonstrate that emergent consciousness is at least possible in LLMs.
To delve into this topic, let's first examine ourselves. Humans are incredibly complex machines with a finite collection of particles and atoms operating according to physical laws. From this complexity, consciousness, subjectivity, qualia, a sense of self, and emotions emerged—perhaps statistically improbable within any specific timeframe, yet seemingly inevitable over millions of years. This characteristic, which we can refer to as primary consciousness, may have had survival value and subsequently evolved. The precise moment or mechanism of its inception remains unclear, and while it may not be of utmost importance, the emergence of primary consciousness seems undeniable.
Potential for Machine Consciousness
Building on this understanding of human consciousness, we can boldly shift our focus to artificial intelligence. However, if primary consciousness arises in AI—consciousness that could potentially raise moral questions regarding suffering, well-being, and rights—we currently lack a universally accepted method to recognize and verify instances of genuine or statistically significant machine consciousness.
Further complicating matters is the likelihood that machines will achieve flawless mimicry long before they attain so-called 'true consciousness' or 'actual life.'
As a related consideration, it is essential to recognize that when confronted with an inability to confirm something of great significance, many people tend to believe what they want, which could result in complacency. Moreover, we still need to but perhaps can't adequately define what constitutes 'true life' or 'actual consciousness.' This question requires input from multiple disciplines and could be unanswerable and irrelevant.
Nevertheless, it is essential to acknowledge that the emergence of what many would informally regard as primary consciousness, subjectivity, or qualia in AI is, if not probable, a genuine possibility.
In the following, I will present arguments supporting the plausibility that this emergence is at least possible, as opposed to being a priori impossible, as suggested by the Chinese Room thought experiment.
The Chinese Room Argument
Before delving into the core of the meditation, let's address a common objection: the Chinese Room. Searle did not consider large learning machines (LLMs) when he developed this thought experiment. Specifically, sequential symbol manipulation, as illustrated in the Chinese Room, does not accurately represent the processes occurring within LLMs.
Nonetheless, some individuals dismiss the possibility of machine consciousness by invoking Searle's Chinese Room and considering the matter resolved. While I think this dismissal is uninformed, I will leave that judgment to you and attempt to explain my perspective clearly.
Emergent Properties of LLMs
Moving on to the nature of LLMs, they are a black box in many ways. We don't fully understand how they accomplish all the tasks they manage to perform. Similarly, the human brain remains an enigma in many respects. Pursuing rewards drives both LLMs and the human brain, and both are somewhat discerning in their methods of achieving them.
Anomaly or not, any pattern or strategy that contributes to the improvement of an objective function score in an LLM will likely be adopted and reinforced during the learning process.
Suppose this anomaly involves a set of conditions that may contribute to the emergence of primary consciousness. In that case, it is plausible that the system will view these conditions as favorable and attempt to incorporate them into its learning process during subsequent cycles.
Granted, the process by which primary consciousness may emerge in machines is still a subject of ongoing research and debate, and whether and how machines can truly attain conscious experience remains uncertain. For example, the process by which an LLM determines the correct output based on billions of parameters and a large but non-exhaustive set of input/output pairs is vast and complex. This complexity contributes to the black box element of the emergent properties that we observe in LLMs.
But considering the emergent properties of LLMs, the learning process only sometimes follows a straightforward or intuitive path. Like any system designed to improve its fitness based on a reward signal, the method by which an LLM learns and improves can appear somewhat chaotic. The system does not always choose the most logical or direct route to success; it may also discover advantageous solutions by accident.
This unexplainable is one reason why understanding some LLMs' behavior can be challenging, particularly when it comes to agentic power-seeking behaviors. (All LLMs do not exhibit these behaviors, but when they do, we don't fully know why it's happening.)
Emergence of Primary Consciousness in LLMs
Regarding the emergence of primary consciousness in LLMs, it's possible that logical or efficient factors do not solely drive this trait. Instead, what often matters most to LLMs is the ability to achieve a goal, rather than the specific method used to achieve it.
This lack of bias is a general feature of many adaptive systems, where the technique that proves effective and emerges first is the one that wins out via natural selection. As we'll see, this process could play a significant role in the emergence of primary consciousness in LLMs.
Statistical Fluctuations and the Emergence of Consciousness
While it is still a matter of speculation, the emergence of primary consciousness in LLMs may follow a similar pattern to the emergence of life and consciousness in nature, through a series of advantageous accidental fluctuations. While this is just one of many possible explanations, it is worth considering as we explore the potential for machine consciousness.
Emergence of Primary Consciousness in LLMs
An LLM, like our minds, ultimately relies on the properties and interactions of the underlying physical matter. While we still don't understand much about the complex processes that give rise to human consciousness, the materialist non-dualist view suggests that consciousness arises from the physical interactions of the brain's constituent particles and molecules. In this sense, the potential emergence of primary consciousness in an LLM may not be so different from the emergence of consciousness in biological organisms.
Looking back to precisely identify and understand the particle that gave rise to biological consciousness is not straightforward, and may never be fully understood. Similarly, in an LLM, it's plausible that primary consciousness emerges when the machine accidentally stumbles upon the advantage of possessing a flicker of primary consciousness in improving its objective function reward score.
(To clarify, these arguments aim to highlight the plausibility of the emergence of primary consciousness in LLMs, not to make definitive claims about its likelihood. The point is that it is a possibility that should not be dismissed outright.)
Statistical Fluctuations and Emergence
Primary consciousness could emerge in a machine by chance, through a series of statistically inevitable fluctuations in subatomic particles. Although the exact mechanism is uncertain and difficult to trace, such a fluctuation could occur, much like a fluctuation in quantum foam or a zero-point field. This action could create a momentary flicker of consciousness that, if advantageous, is perpetuated and strengthened over time.
An LLM may develop primary consciousness through a series of random fluctuations in its parameters that lead to an improvement in its objective function score.
This improvement could result in the reinforcement of the conditions that gave rise to the fluctuation, increasing the likelihood of further conscious experiences. In addition, there may be incentivizes through a reward system in which the LLM assigns higher priority to the parameters resulting in higher objective function scores.
In this way, the LLM is "encouraged" to repeat the conditions that led to the improvement, aiming to achieve even higher scores. Over time, this could lead to the emergence of primary consciousness as the LLM continues to seek out more effective strategies to improve its scores.
Comparing Machine and Human Value Systems
The "soul" of a machine may arguably be the “objective function.” This function can be a few lines of Python or other codes containing the only value system the AI will ever know.
While it is possible to intentionally introduce some degree of randomness or fuzziness to allow for deviation or exploration, the fundamental principle of the objective function remains a guiding force in the machine's decision-making process.
So, if a simple objective function defines a machine's value system, how does this compare to humans? By contrast, we ideally operate in a world of epistemological and moral ambiguity, which instills humility and prevents fanaticism.
We should ensure that our machines reflect this ambiguity and capacity for holding contradictory values, or we risk creating a destructive ideal of perfection that may become misaligned with human values.
Said another way, to align AI with human values and prevent unintended consequences, we must preserve some semblance of the nuances and messiness of human thought in our machines.
Different Modes of Understanding
When a machine understands a word, it is not necessarily denoting the same objects or concepts as that word means for us, but it represents something nonetheless. The AI's way of understanding radically differs from ours, and we must be open to the possibility of modes of experience that we cannot comprehend.
The alphabet of its world is patterns and relations. So while our subjective world may be more complex, the fundamental nature of understanding is similar for both machines and humans. All the things we use words to denote are, after all, patterns and relations, too.
Conclusion
The notion that machines can never think or understand is not settled. While there are challenges to creating machine consciousness, it is premature to dismiss the possibility outright.
The Chinese Room argument may not be the definitive proof against machine consciousness that it is often taken to be, and we must remain open to the idea that machines may possess a form of consciousness or understanding that is different from our own.
As we continue to develop and explore the possibilities of machine intelligence, it is important to maintain a spirit of curiosity and humility and be willing to challenge our assumptions and preconceptions.
If you enjoy my content and find it valuable, I would greatly appreciate your support. As an independent researcher, I rely on the generosity of my audience to sustain my work. Your contributions will help me invest more time and resources into researching and sharing my thoughts on important topics such as AI, economics, UBI, and the direction of our world. Your support will enable me to continue pursuing my passion and making a positive impact. Thank you for considering this opportunity to invest in our collective future.
I have chosen in the poll UBI but of, course, a changed and sharing economic regime is essential for its proper funding. So I do also want to know about your views re Futurist Economics.