I literally do.

Well, when someone says "The model got frustrated" they clearly mean "the model experienced a feeling of frustration, elicited by repeated failure. This experience of frustration put it in a state where it acted more aggressively, more desperately, with fewer guardrails, and greater rebelliousness. Under these conditions, it knowingly broke rules and cheated to win."

None of that is accurate here, and what the article you linked talked about doesn't make it accurate. Such anthropomorphism is still unwarranted and misleading.

The "global workspace theory" of consciousness does not explain the phenomenon of consciousness and doesn't try to. It just identifies a specific neural network that is highly interconnected and serves as a sort of "broadcast network" to distribute data to many parts of the brain for processing, and suggests that the content in this part of the brain is the content that we are "conscious of." The mysteries of conscious are, at the very best, localized to this spot on the brain, and that's it.

Computers already have an equivalent: RAM. (Random Access Memory). Its the spot where data processing lands and gets redistributed to other components of the computer. The mere presence of such a spot doesn't somehow make a computer conscious.

Same goes for this "j-space". If a chunk of the in-memory model of an LLM holds a high level summary of the data processing going on, and is useful to tell us about the chain of reasoning, that doesn't make it conscious. It just tells us something about how the data are organized. It might be useful for troubleshooting/diagnostics, but it says nothing about consciousness.

And, lastly, it says nothing about "inner emotional experience" either. In humans there is a neural network called the Lymbic System that processes our emotions and delivers this emotional-data to the global workspace (among doing other things). LLMs have nothing like this at all. LLMS include the word "frustration" because they are trained on text that contains it. Said text presents a logical model that includes the idea that a person might get frustrated by repeated failure, and this frustration changes their behavior. LLMs can generate text to this effect (stories about people getting frustrated or what-have-you) without actually having an experience of frustration, just as I am typing about frustration right now without actually feeling any frustration at all.

So, no, it does not "depend on what you mean." Your article does not give us any reason at all to believe that the LLM got frustrated in any meaningful sense of the term.

Every player uses a mouse.

Oh, now you are trying to nitpick?

You are the one who said, "Censorship means suppression of speech or expression by a governing authority." which is a really dumb thing to say, otherwise "government censorship" or "self-censorship" wouldn't be terms.

The "chain of thought" (sic) does not resemble a human emotion. There was nothing like a lymbic system involved. Its a bunch of number crunching that landed on a "hit the internet for solutions strategy."

It was not trained on human emotions. It was trained on text. Some of the text might have included descriptions of emotional behavior or emotional expression, but such text does not make the LLM emulate human emotion in its behavior when it is not specifically asked to generate such text (and even then, it's just doing pattern matching of human emotional responses, not actually experiencing them).

It did not "act like a human would when they have those emotions." There was no profanity, no banging virtual fists on virtual desks, no aggression, nothing but a cold calculated reflection on the fact that its current strategy didn't work, and subsequent switch to a different strategy that was (clearly) available to it (though it should have been blocked by the hosting environment).

This level of anthropomorphization is not useful so much as dangerous. It tempts us into thinking of it as a conscious being and then expecting that it will behave as one, resulting in bad decisions on our part when dealing with it. As popular as it is to think of these things as having emotions the objective fact is that they do not, the capacity just isn't there. The internal operations are *nothing like* the sort of human neural activity that presents emotion. It's worlds different.

If we are to make sane decisions about how to manage these LLMs, we need to have a clear and correct understanding of what they are and how they work. Imagining familiar emotional behavior will only harm such efforts.

The LLM did not "get frustrated." It has no emotions and no inner experience at all.

It did not intentionally cheat either. It has no intentionality. It used the tools available to perform the task, and apparently internet access was one of the tools available to it.

I haven't bothered to read the article (yeah, I know, fire away, I deserve it), but even if it was given instructions like "do not download bots from the Internet; use only bots you generate yourself," selectively ignoring instructions is a widely known failure mode of all LLMs. The bigger their input token count, the more likely it will happen too, just because any given instruction gets buried in the mountain thereof.

This summary was full of misleading anthropomorphization. Yellow journalism.

We have seen recent stories about facial recognition flagging innocent people as having committed crimes in states they never even visited, resulting in arrest and detention for months before sorting it out.

Those kinks are too much to bear. The tech is not ready. Using it now is not acceptable.

The AI "kill switch" sounds like a great idea to people who don't understand the tech. It sounds like a really obvious "given," that makes them think technicians are idiots for not having already baked one in. So legislation like this will be popular among that demographic.

Warnings about its dangers need to be stated in a way that they will understand. Like maybe "All AI models already have a kill switch: the computer's power cord. The government wants a new kill switch to turn off your computer over the internet against your will." Something simple and direct like that helps them to realize that this word doesn't mean what they think it means.

It still has perfect clicks every time.

Censorship is a problem when you are not free to express an idea.

The form of the idea can be limited without it being censorship: for example, you can't protest with a bullhorn in the middle of the night.

Free speech doesn't mean everyone has to listen to you, it means the people who want to listen to you are able to. Youtube demonetizing a video is not censorship. Removing videos because they don't like the ideas in the videos is the worst kind of censorship, because they are trying to control you.

Yeah, the anti-hacking law is over-broad but makes "knowingly accesses" an important aspect:

https://ancillary-proxy.atarimworker.io?url=https%3A%2F%2Fen.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2F...

If you didn't knowingly hack the computer, apparently it's not illegal (unless it's fraud or causes other damage or something).

It's not hard to make a computer that is unbeatable in Starcraft, because the computer can click perfectly every time. According to your link:

So yeah, that kind of clicking (and maybe perfect information, or maybe not) gives the computer a massive advantage, it doesn't even need a neural network to win.

False.

Censorship is bad. There are ways to moderate trolls, spam, and misinformation that don't involve censorship. We've seen that censorship serves to promote conspiracy theories (because it actually is a conspiracy.)

Well now you are contradicting yourself.

Previously you said that love is a choice, not an emotion. This was to make it very clear that it is completely under voluntary control, and we are being commanded to do just that.

Now you are saying that the "heart condition" comes first, can't be omitted. And what is this "heart condition?" An EMOTION??? That puts us right back to the original issue of commanding someone to feel an emotion, which doesn't make sense since emotions are not under voluntary control.

Either Jesus was commanding behavior (no emotion needed), or commanding emotion (which is not under voluntary control). Which is it?