Thanks. I’ve read much of that “bullshit” paper and I think there’s some interesting overlap. Some ways I think it relates:
Their “lack of external validation of AI welfare” problem seems at the root of the problem I name that “the signals we get from the AI may not tells us anything directional about the valence of the part of the AI that has consciousness” (if it does). If there is no ground truth (opportunity for ‘falsification’) here I don’t see how we can credibly make that link.
The evidence they cite about the sensitivity of the measures signals of valence to seemingly irrelevant engineering choices reinforces my doubts.
Thanks. I’ve read much of that “bullshit” paper and I think there’s some interesting overlap. Some ways I think it relates:
Their “lack of external validation of AI welfare” problem seems at the root of the problem I name that “the signals we get from the AI may not tells us anything directional about the valence of the part of the AI that has consciousness” (if it does). If there is no ground truth (opportunity for ‘falsification’) here I don’t see how we can credibly make that link.
The evidence they cite about the sensitivity of the measures signals of valence to seemingly irrelevant engineering choices reinforces my doubts.