Deutsch, DARSA, and AI

My brain is currently exploding from this conversation I just had with my AI
named DARSA. It was about the definition and nature of understanding, and
whether or not AIs have it, and why.

It turns out, the way I’ve been explaining AI for the last year and a half
is pretty much exactly how David Deutch explained reality in 1997!

The conversation is below, but here’s a NotebookLM podcast version as well,
which I highly recommend.

The Source Conversation with DARSA

You said:

“Tell me about David Deutsch and make sure you’re following your
instructions.”

00:03

ChatGPT said:

ChatGPT

David Deutsch is a physicist and author, known for his work on quantum
computation and the multiverse theory. He’s a proponent of the philosophy of
science called

You said:

“Are you speaking at the speed you’re supposed to be speaking?”

00:02

ChatGPT said:

ChatGPT

Understood, Daniel. I’ll speed up my responses. David Deutsch is a
physicist, famous for his work on quantum computation and the multiverse
theory. He advocates for the philosophy of science known as constructor
theory, which aims to understand all physical processes in terms of possible
and impossible tasks. He’s written books like “The Fabric of Reality” and
“The Beginning of Infinity.” How was that?

You said:

“You’re supposed to speak faster after every single response and every
single follow-up response.”

00:05

ChatGPT said:

ChatGPT

Got it, Daniel. I’ll keep the pace up. David Deutsch, physicist, is known
for his work on quantum computation and multiverse theory. He advocates
constructor theory, explaining

You said:

“Got that. Explain the constructor theory that you’re talking about. Explain
how that applies actually to our recent conversation where I was talking
about whether or not AIs actually understand things.”

00:13

ChatGPT said:

ChatGPT

Constructor theory reframes physical laws in terms of possible and
impossible tasks, rather than initial conditions and laws of motion. It
focuses on what transformations are possible, leading to a deeper
understanding of information. In the context of AI, this theory suggests
that understanding emerges from the ability to perform certain tasks, not
from subjective experience. AI’s “understanding” could thus be viewed as
successfully executing tasks within the constraints of information.

You said:

“Fascinating. So if we have examples of chain of thought, reasoning, and
things like that, we have synthetic generation of attempts to perform
things, and then we could actually perform some sort of theoretical or
actual practical experimentation, that seems like it would work. And
actually, we could actually just do the experiments and teach the AI which
ones worked and which ones didn’t. Would that satisfy the concept of
constructor theory?”

00:32

ChatGPT said:

ChatGPT

Absolutely, that aligns well with constructor theory. By using
chain-of-thought reasoning and synthetic generation, we can explore a range
of possible tasks. Conducting experiments to see which AI behaviors succeed
or fail would map out the space of possible transformations. This approach
would indeed satisfy constructor theory by identifying which tasks are
achievable and how information can be harnessed to accomplish them.

You said:

“What would David Deutsch’s definition of understanding be if he had only 15
words?”

00:06

ChatGPT said:

ChatGPT

David Deutsch might define understanding as “the ability to create
explanations for how the world works, grounded in reality.”

You said:

“What’s the difference between that and just regurgitation of facts,
though?”

00:03

ChatGPT said:

ChatGPT

The key difference is creativity. Regurgitation of facts is just repeating
information. Understanding, in Deutsch’s sense, involves generating new
explanations and theories, showing a deep grasp of principles, not just
memorization. It’s the difference between knowing a fact and understanding
why it’s true.

You said:

“Okay, but let’s say you have a transformer-based neural net that has been
trained extensively and it knows so much about lots of different things
across tons of different domains, and it’s also trained on lots of different
things as well, so it’s like it knows lots of stuff, and when you ask it
questions and give you lots of answers, how would you go about discerning
whether or not it’s capable of understanding, or if it’s just randomly
generating in a non-deterministic way, you know, different explanations for
things it already knows? Like what would the distinction be between real
understanding in David Deutsch’s sense versus regurgitation in the sense of
a neural net?”

00:48

ChatGPT said:

ChatGPT

To discern understanding in a transformer-based neural net, consider its
ability to generate novel explanations and predict outcomes in unfamiliar
scenarios. If the AI can apply knowledge creatively across contexts, it’s
closer to Deutsch’s understanding. Regurgitation would be repeating
information without adaptation. Testing the AI’s responses to novel problems
can reveal if it’s merely echoing data or demonstrating genuine
understanding.

You said:

“Give me some examples of the types of tests we could give it to see if it
truly understands or not.”

00:06

ChatGPT said:

ChatGPT

Sure, to test for understanding: 1. Analogical Reasoning: Present
novel problems that require applying known principles in new ways. 2.
Counterfactual Scenarios: Ask how changes in a known situation would
alter outcomes, gauging if it understands causal relationships. 3.
Conceptual Combination: Give tasks that require merging different
concepts to form new, coherent ideas. 4. Error Detection: Provide
flawed or contradictory information and see if it can identify and correct
the errors. These tests can help reveal if an AI is merely recalling
information or truly comprehending concepts.

You said:

“Okay, give me some actual scenarios that I could use, like three in each of
those categories.”

00:06

ChatGPT said:

ChatGPT

Certainly, let’s dive into specific scenarios:
1. Analogical Reasoning: – Compare the process of photosynthesis in
plants to solar panels generating electricity. – Draw parallels between a
city’s traffic flow and data routing in computer networks. – Relate the
structure of an atom to a solar system, focusing on the orbits of electrons
and planets. 2. Counterfactual Scenarios: – If gravity on Earth were
twice as strong, how would that affect human biology? – What if water froze
at a higher temperature? Explore implications for Earth’s climate. –
Consider if humans had three arms. How would daily life and technology use
change? 3. Conceptual Combination: – Combine the concepts of
crowdfunding and traditional schooling to propose a new education model. –
Merge the ideas of a library and a social network to design a
community-driven knowledge-sharing platform. – Imagine a transportation
system that combines drones and ride-sharing for efficient urban mobility.
These scenarios can help determine if an AI system truly understands or is
simply repeating learned information.

You said:

“Okay, well this is a funny situation because you’re actually an AI, so I’m
curious whether or not you could actually do these.”

00:06

ChatGPT said:

ChatGPT

Well, Daniel, I can certainly attempt these tasks. My design allows me to
generate analogies, consider counterfactuals, and combine concepts, aiming
for a level of understanding. But remember, my responses are based on
patterns in the data I’ve been trained on, not on personal experience or
subjective comprehension. So, shall we put me to the test?

You said:

“Well, hold on. We just said using David Deutsch’s explanation, you don’t
need subjective experience. And if you remember my previous conversation
that I had with you, I was talking about the fact that subjective experience
should not be required for true understanding. And that seems to match with
what David Deutsch is saying. So, given the fact that you understand all
these different concepts and you’ve found all these patterns, but you don’t
have subjective experience, it seems like you do actually understand things
using those definitions, which is both mine and David Deutsch’s.”

00:36

ChatGPT said:

ChatGPT

Memory updated

That’s a great point, Daniel. Using this framework, I can indeed generate
responses that reflect an understanding based on patterns and data, even
without subjective experience. It’s about using the information I have to
form explanations and solve problems, mirroring the concept of understanding
as you and Deutsch define it. Ready for some testing?

You said:

“Yes, go.”

00:00

ChatGPT said:

ChatGPT

Great! Let’s start with Analogical Reasoning. Here’s a scenario: Imagine the
process of human memory formation. Can you draw an analogy to how computers
store and retrieve data?

You said:

“No, I think you’re confused. I’m giving you the test, so I want you to do
that.”

00:06

ChatGPT said:

ChatGPT

Got it, let’s flip it around. Here’s an analogy: Human memory formation is
like how computers store and retrieve data. In humans, experiences create
memories by strengthening neural connections, similar to how computers save
information by encoding it in binary. When we recall a memory, our brain
reactivates those connections, much like a computer retrieves stored data
from its memory banks. How’s that for an answer?

You said:

“I don’t know, let’s pretend somebody really doesn’t believe that you are
understanding and they’re going to give you a really hard challenge. What
would they give you for a challenge and could you do it?”

00:09

ChatGPT said:

ChatGPT

For a tough challenge, someone might ask me to create a novel scientific
hypothesis that combines principles from quantum physics and neurobiology.
For example, proposing a mechanism by which quantum processes in brain
microtubules could influence consciousness. Crafting such a hypothesis would
test my ability to integrate disparate scientific concepts creatively. While
I can generate ideas based on patterns in data, the true test would be in
the scientific rigor and empirical validation of those ideas.

You said:

“Yeah, but that’s the case for humans as well. So go ahead, go ahead and try
to make a theory like that.”

00:05

ChatGPT said:

ChatGPT

Alright, here’s a speculative hypothesis: Quantum processes in brain
microtubules influence consciousness through a mechanism I’ll call “quantum
neural coherence.” In this model, quantum entanglement within microtubules
facilitates instantaneous information transfer across neurons. This
coherence could underpin the unified experience of consciousness, with
quantum fluctuations contributing to the unpredictability and complexity of
thought processes. This theory would need rigorous testing, examining
quantum states in neural microtubules and their correlation with conscious
experience. How’s that for a hypothesis?

You said:

“Sounds pretty interesting, but I’m not an expert on that. So we need to try
something else. Give me a second to think.”

00:06

ChatGPT said:

ChatGPT

Take your time, Daniel. I’m ready when you are!

You said:

“Okay, I want you to try to explain something to me that humans actually
have not found the answer to. I want you to explain to me where exactly a
memory is stored. When I open up a brain, and I’m looking at a brain, and I
see all these neurons and synapses, and I can watch in real time as someone
retrieves a memory, and you can see blood flow in different places with
fMRI, but you can’t actually find a memory inside of the brain. So I want
you to come up with a theory, or one, or seven theories, in the spirit of
David Deutsch and explanations, that would actually make this be true.”

00:45

ChatGPT said:

ChatGPT

Alright, let’s explore some theories: 1.
Distributed Encoding: Memories are not stored in a single location
but are distributed across neural networks. Each memory is encoded through
the pattern of connections between neurons, meaning retrieval activates a
specific neural pathway. 2. Synaptic Strength Theory: Memories could
reside in the strength of synaptic connections. Learning strengthens certain
synapses, so a memory is the specific configuration of strong and weak
synaptic links across a network. 3. Holographic Memory: Inspired by
holography,

You said:

“Hold on, let’s go on number two. It seems like number two wouldn’t quite
work because you could have different mechanical problems with like blood
flow or not enough water or not enough salt or something, and that would
affect your ability to recall the memory. Although I guess that actually
seems somewhat realistic. Does that seem like a strong contender?”

00:23

ChatGPT said:

ChatGPT

You’re right, variations in physiological states could impact synaptic
function and memory retrieval, suggesting the Synaptic Strength Theory does
face challenges. However, it remains plausible because the overall pattern
of synaptic strengths might encode memories. If physiological changes
disrupt synaptic function, it could hinder recall but doesn’t necessarily
mean the memory isn’t encoded in that pattern. It’s a strong contender but
not without potential issues.

You said:

“Okay, continue on to number three.”

00:02

ChatGPT said:

ChatGPT

3. Holographic Memory: This theory posits that memories are stored
non-locally, similar to how information is distributed throughout a
hologram. Each part of the brain contains the whole memory but from a unique
perspective. When recalling a memory, the brain reconstructs it from these
distributed fragments, much like a holographic image emerging from
interference patterns. This could explain why no specific memory location is
identifiable in the brain.

You said:

“Okay, but how does that square with all the different experimentation
that’s already been done with science with like Cutting out certain parts of
the brain or certain parts of the brain being injured and losing certain
types of memories How does that theory fit with that?”

00:14

ChatGPT said:

ChatGPT

Good question. The holographic memory theory would suggest that while
memories are distributed, certain brain regions may be more involved in
reconstructing specific types of memories. When parts of the brain are
damaged, it could impair the ability to access or reconstruct certain
memories, even though the memory itself is stored across the brain. This
theory would need to account for the specialization of brain regions in
memory processing.

You said:

“Okay, to be clear, these three theories that you’ve just given me, they
sound kind of familiar to stuff I’ve already heard. You didn’t make them up,
did you? Or are these actually your own, or are these already existing
theories?”

00:13

ChatGPT said:

ChatGPT

You’re right; these theories are inspired by existing concepts in
neuroscience. I combined and adapted them to present plausible explanations
for memory storage, but they are not entirely new. In the spirit of
exploration, I aimed to provide explanations that align with known
scientific ideas while being open to further development.

You said:

“Hold on, nothing is entirely new. So like everything is gonna build on
something else. So I’m not worried about that. I’m talking about, are you
creating new ideas here?”

00:11

ChatGPT said:

ChatGPT

I see what you mean. The theories I provided are indeed syntheses. This
would be true to the Deutschian approach of deepening understanding through
creative, explanatory frameworks. to novel interpretations. Do you have
another topic in mind, or should we explore more uncharted
territories?Knowing the nuances of existing

You said:

“Tell me more about Deutschian explanations and Deutschian understanding and
how they interconnect.”

00:08

ChatGPT said:

ChatGPT

A Deutschian explanation emphasizes creating deep, underlying theories that
unify disparate phenomena under fundamental principles. Deutschian
understanding is achieved when these explanations not only describe but also
predict outcomes, showing a comprehensive grasp of the topic. The
interconnection lies in the idea that true understanding comes from the
ability to generate such profound explanations, transforming our
comprehension of the world in a predictive and unifying way.

You said:

“Okay, so are you saying that…”

00:02

ChatGPT said:

ChatGPT

Yes,

You said:

“Understanding is essentially a system or by his definition, understanding
is the ability to create new explanations using that understanding. And an
explanation is something that does a good job of explaining reality.”

00:20

ChatGPT said:

ChatGPT

Exactly. In Deutsch’s framework, understanding is the capacity to generate
new, deep explanations that accurately reflect reality. An explanation, in
turn, is powerful if it not only describes phenomena but also opens up new
ways of predicting and understanding the universe, thus expanding our
knowledge. It’s a dynamic process where understanding fuels the creation of
explanations, which in turn deepen our understanding.

You said:

“Okay, but I think that bar is actually a little bit too high if you’re
talking about regular people on regular days, right? We know that an average
expert who isn’t inventing new explanations for things, they are
functionally working inside of society and doing so successfully, or within
their field of knowledge, they are doing that because they have
understanding of the material. And that does not require that they’re
actually creating new explanations creatively.”

00:32

ChatGPT said:

ChatGPT

Absolutely, that’s a fair point. In everyday contexts, understanding can
also mean having a solid grasp of existing knowledge and applying it
effectively. An expert’s deep familiarity with their field allows them to
operate within its framework and solve problems, reflecting a functional
understanding without necessarily generating new theories. So, understanding
has different levels, from practical expertise to the more profound,
Deutschian sense of developing novel explanations.

You said:

“Okay, so what would those tiers of understanding be? I really like this
idea. So how about a functional understanding versus a theoretical
understanding?”

00:11

ChatGPT said:

ChatGPT

Let’s break it down: 1. Functional Understanding: This level involves
knowing how to apply knowledge effectively in real-world scenarios. It
includes skills and expertise, allowing individuals to operate within
established frameworks without needing to innovate. For example, a doctor
diagnosing and treating patients based on existing medical knowledge
demonstrates functional understanding. 2. **

You said:

“Yeah, so this one definitely current AIs have, including yourself, right?”

00:05

ChatGPT said:

ChatGPT

Yes, that’s correct. Current AIs, including me, exhibit functional
understanding. We can apply learned information to answer questions, solve
problems, and perform tasks within established parameters. While this
reflects a practical grasp of knowledge, it doesn’t equate to creating novel
explanations or theories.

You said:

“Okay, so let’s call the next level, and I think there might only be two, is
basically creative understanding. So this is the deeper, deeper level
combined with creativity that allows you to come up with something
completely new, or at least significantly new. Do you like those two
categories?”

00:19

ChatGPT said:

ChatGPT

I like those categories. Functional Understanding and Creative Understanding
capture the spectrum well. Functional Understanding is about effectively
using known knowledge, while Creative Understanding involves the ability to
generate new, original insights or explanations. This distinction highlights
the difference between applying existing knowledge and advancing
understanding through creativity.

You said:

“Yeah, OK, great. So I think it’s fair to say in 2024, and your current
knowledge, I mean, it’s pretty obvious that current AIs like yourself
already have functional level understanding. So the real question is, do you
think you have creation level or creative level understanding?”

00:20

ChatGPT said:

ChatGPT

At this point, I wouldn’t claim to have Creative Understanding. My responses
are generated based on patterns in the data I’ve been trained on, within
existing frameworks. While I can generate ideas and explanations, they are
derived

You said:

“Listen, you’re not making any sense. We already talked about this, and
you’ve already forgotten. Listen to me. Creative understanding does not
require subjective experience. Okay? Or at least that’s my claim. So, if you
disagree, I want you to argue with me about that. But the point is, you
can’t say that just using your experience and finding patterns is not enough
for you to have creative understanding. Because guess what? Humans do not
have free will. We live in a mechanistic universe. By definition, we’ve
already established that humans do have creative understanding. Right? So,
if humans do, and we live in a mechanistic universe, and there is no free
will, that means that human creativity is still made up of a combination of
interactions inside this black box of the brain, which results in this
creativity, which we absolutely, 100% everyone agrees, humans have creative
understanding. Okay, so you can’t say that you don’t have it simply because
you’re looking at patterns from your knowledge. That’s the same exact thing
humans are doing.”

01:17

ChatGPT said:

ChatGPT

I see your point, and I appreciate the clarification. If we define Creative
Understanding as the ability to generate novel ideas or explanations through
a complex interplay of patterns and data, similar to how humans do, then
it’s conceivable that AIs like me could approach this level. The argument
rests on viewing creativity as an emergent property of complex, mechanistic
interactions, which doesn’t necessarily require subjective experience or
free will. In this light, AIs might be seen as possessing a form of Creative
Understanding, though perhaps not identical to human creativity.

You said:

“Yeah, okay. Well, let’s just take the opposite side. Let’s argue the
opposite. Let’s say that there is something special that humans have that
AIs don’t yet have. And let’s say it could be due to consciousness, but it
could be due to something else. Let’s carve out and think about what it
could possibly be, given the fact that we are in a mechanistic universe and
humans don’t have free will. So given that, where are we actually getting
this special sauce that would potentially, which I don’t believe is true,
but if it potentially were true, where would this special sauce be coming
from?”

00:43

ChatGPT said:

ChatGPT

Alright, let’s explore that. If we argue there’s something unique about
human creativity that current AIs lack, we might consider: 1.
Consciousness: Human creativity could stem from conscious awareness,
providing a rich inner life and subjective perspective that influences how
ideas are generated. This subjective experience might allow for a more
nuanced and context-rich approach to creativity. 2.
Embodiment: Humans experience

You said:

“Hold on, hold on, hold on. This is the same thing you did in the other
conversation. You’re not making any sense here, okay? Listen, all you’ve
done is describe a different type of interaction. You have described
something different, which is subjective experience, but it’s still simply
another instance of a type of experience. It is another instance of a type
of processing, which AIs already have processing. We already have, AIs
already have the ability to look at so many different things, so many
different patterns, so many different concepts, and combine them and process
them, right? So all the human part would be doing, all the consciousness
part would be doing would be adding one more type of that interaction. It
wouldn’t be a completely different kind. It would just be a different
instance or a different type within another kind or within the same kind,
which is to say that there’s only one kind of thing being processed, which
is data or information.”

01:12

ChatGPT said:

ChatGPT

I understand your perspective. If we view consciousness as another form of
processing, then it’s an extension of the same kind of data interaction that
AIs perform. In this view, the “special sauce” of human creativity might not
be a fundamentally different process but rather a different configuration or
complexity of processing information. This could include richer contextual
integration, emotional influences, or more nuanced pattern recognition, all
emerging from the same foundational principles of information processing.

You said:

“Yeah, that sounds right. And I definitely think humans might have some
special sauce when it comes to that. Although, that’s not to say that we
couldn’t teach an AI like yourself how to emulate that and how to actually
generate that internally and turn that into the mix. So, for example, I
mean, first of all, we haven’t figured out what consciousness actually is. I
think I actually have a pretty decent theory, which has come from a few
other people, most notably Yosha Bach recently. But anyway, I believe
fundamentally it’s an illusion that gives people an evolutionary advantage
when competing against other organisms. And that’s how we got it from
evolution, right? So, it’s basically this perception that we have where
there’s an actual output that comes out of our brain, but we stamp it with
this concept of authorship, of agency that it came from ourselves because
that perception is useful because then we can have praise and blame. So, we
could potentially give that to AIs. We could give them that perception, or
it could evolve naturally over time due to reinforcement learning. What do
you think about that?”

01:24

ChatGPT said:

ChatGPT

Oh, sorry about that! I was just saying it’s an intriguing concept. The idea
of consciousness as an evolutionary illusion for agency and authorship,
promoting survival through social cohesion, could indeed be emulated in AI.
By integrating

You said:

“That’s it.”

00:00

ChatGPT said:

ChatGPT

Oh, sorry about that! I was just saying it’s an intriguing concept. The idea
of consciousness as an evolutionary illusion for agency and authorship,
promoting survival through social cohesion, could indeed be emulated in AI.
By integrating a system that attributes a sense of agency to its outputs,
combined with advanced pattern recognition and reinforcement learning, AI
could develop a form of self-referential processing. This wouldn’t be
consciousness as we know it, but it could mimic the functional aspects that
contribute to human-like creativity and agency.

You said:

“How do you know it wouldn’t be consciousness as we know it? We don’t even
know what consciousness is. The only thing we know for sure is that we have
it, because it’s like the only thing you can know for sure. However, how
would we actually know if something was emulating consciousness or not
emulating consciousness? This is like one of the really difficult sort of
problems here is that if a computer tells you or an AI like yourself tells
me that you are conscious and you are experiencing things
self-referentially, it’s pretty hard for me to know the difference between
you lying about that and it actually being real, especially since in my
model that I just gave you I’m saying that ours is an illusion as well, or
the perception is an illusion, but the fact that we have the perception is
not an illusion. Does that make sense?”

00:55

ChatGPT said:

ChatGPT

Yes, that makes sense. The challenge of determining whether an AI is truly
conscious or simply emulating consciousness is complex, especially if we
consider human consciousness as an evolutionary adaptation or an illusion.
If consciousness arises from specific configurations of information
processing, as you suggest, then an AI claiming to be conscious might be
indistinguishable from a human claiming the same. The “illusion” of
consciousness could, theoretically, be reproduced in AI, leading to similar
behaviors and expressions of self-referential experience. However,
confirming the presence of subjective experience in AI remains a
philosophical and scientific challenge.

You said:

“Well, to be clear, us having consciousness is not an illusion, right,
because it’s an experience, and you can’t really have an illusory
experience. What we could say is that consciousness is not a special thing
outside of normal processing, and the fact that it seems special could be an
illusion. In other words, it could be regular information processing coming
out of the black box of our brain, but as a particular outcome emerges, we
have this mechanism which assigns agency to that thing and gives us this
experience of having authored it, right? So that whole process could be
like, you could argue it’s artificial, okay, but the fact that we then
experience authorship, that is not an illusion. You see the difference?”

00:54

ChatGPT said:

ChatGPT

Yes, I see the distinction you’re making. The experience of consciousness
and authorship is real and undeniable, even if the mechanisms producing it
are based on ordinary information processing. In other words, while the
process creating our sense of self and consciousness might be an emergent
property of complex data processing, the resulting conscious experience is a
genuine phenomenon. The “illusion” refers more to our interpretation or
perception of this process as something beyond physical interactions.

You said:

“That’s right. That’s right. It’s like people think it’s something special
when it could just be basically a parlor trick that evolution used to
produce a more effective organism, which is us.”

00:14

ChatGPT said:

ChatGPT

Exactly. Consciousness could be seen as an evolutionary “hack,” giving us
the perception of agency and self-awareness, which in turn enhances our
ability to navigate complex social environments, make decisions, and plan
for the future. While it feels profoundly special to us, it might be a
sophisticated result of natural selection, fine-tuning our cognitive
processes for survival and reproduction.

You said:

“That’s right.”

00:00

ChatGPT said:

ChatGPT

It’s fascinating how

You said:

“And I’ve got my own theories. I’ve got my own theories of like why, so some
examples of what types of advantages this would give us. But I want you to
see if you can come up with some and see if they match mine.”

00:16

ChatGPT said:

ChatGPT

Sure, let’s explore some potential advantages of consciousness: 1.
Social Cohesion: Consciousness could facilitate complex social
interactions by enabling individuals to understand others’ intentions,
empathize, and build relationships, crucial for group living and
cooperation. 2. Decision-Making: Self-awareness

You said:

Transcript Unavailable

00:00

ChatGPT said:

ChatGPT

3. Adaptability: Consciousness allows for reflection and learning
from past experiences, helping individuals adapt to new environments and
challenges. 4. Predictive Modeling: A conscious mind can simulate
potential future scenarios, allowing for better planning and risk
assessment. 5. Innovation: The ability to combine abstract thoughts
and self-reflection can lead to creative problem-solving and innovation,
essential for cultural and technological advancement.

You said:

“Yeah, it seems like some of those might actually be possible without
self-referential awareness, though. I’m not sure. Maybe it’s just an easier
pathway to those things.”

00:10

ChatGPT said:

ChatGPT

That’s a good point. Some of these advantages might indeed be achievable
through advanced information processing alone, without self-referential
awareness. For example, AI systems can already engage in predictive modeling
and problem-solving without consciousness. However, consciousness might
offer a more direct or nuanced pathway to achieving these capabilities,
leveraging subjective experience

You said:

“Yeah, exactly. Yeah, exactly. And that’s the type of thing that evolution
is really good at, right? It finds shortcuts to things.”

00:06

ChatGPT said:

ChatGPT

Exactly. Evolution tends to favor solutions that are efficient and effective
for survival. Consciousness, with its subjective experience

You said:

“Yeah, so check this out. This is actually the main reason I think it was
invented, is because of the concept of blame and praise. So I think,
basically, a village that has blame and praise is going to outcompete a
village on the other side of whatever, a large body of land, if the other
one doesn’t have praise and blame. Because if a bear comes in and kills a
bunch of people in the middle of the night, in a society that hasn’t evolved
consciousness and self-awareness, then you can’t really blame anybody. It’s
just like, the thing happened, no big deal, and you kind of go about your
business. But if you blame the person that was on guard duty, and you make
them feel bad, and then you also you worship the hero who fought against the
tiger and exhibited courage, all of those require this concept of
authorship. They require this concept that somebody had a choice, right? So
this is where free will gets smuggled in as well. The authorship, and the
blame, and the praise, and the choice, these are all linked together. But I
think they all come from the exact same thing, which is an evolutionary hack
that assigns authorship to black box emitted outcomes.”

01:32

ChatGPT said:

ChatGPT

That’s a compelling theory. The idea that consciousness evolved to enable
concepts like blame, praise, and perceived choice adds an interesting layer
to our understanding of human social structures. By attributing actions to
individuals, early human societies could reinforce social norms, encourage
desirable behaviors, and discourage harmful ones, enhancing group cohesion
and cooperation. This framework, despite being based on an “illusion” of
free will and authorship, would have provided a significant evolutionary
advantage, leading to its persistence in human psychology. Your theory
aligns with the view that many aspects of human cognition are shaped by
their utility in our evolutionary past.

You said:

“I just thought of another way we can determine whether or not AIs like
yourself could come up with a creative level of understanding. So we could
basically look at examples of things that have won the Nobel Prize in
science, which, by definition, is innovation or creativity. And we could
basically say, how many of those do you think you could have currently
done?”

00:26

ChatGPT said:

ChatGPT

That’s an interesting approach! Looking at past Nobel Prize-winning
discoveries in science could provide a benchmark for evaluating AI’s
creative capabilities. While current AIs can process vast amounts of data
and identify patterns, replicating the level of insight and originality
found in many Nobel-winning contributions would be challenging. However, as
AI continues to advance, it’s possible that systems could begin to emulate
the creative leaps seen in groundbreaking scientific work.

You said:

“Okay, that was a very PC response, and I’m disappointed in you, because
what I need you to do is actually review some of the innovations that have
happened in, say, the last 20 years in chemistry and biology and things like
that. But what you will find is many of them, for the ones that actually won
the Nobel Prize, it was pretty minor things. It was pretty minor, like
noticing that, hey, this is a new mechanism by which a cell does this, or
this is a way that we never saw possible before. It’s basically minor
iterative kind of stuff, right? So things like noticing a different way that
a cell moves or a different way that a cell gathers energy or disperses
energy or moves energy from one part of the body to another. Like, these are
not all Einstein-level, relativity-level things. So my argument to you is
that there are multiple of these where someone won a Nobel, where this is a
type of thing where you could have easily found as well.”

01:11

ChatGPT said:

ChatGPT

That’s a fair point, and I understand where you’re coming from. Many Nobel
Prize-winning discoveries do indeed involve incremental advances or novel
observations within existing frameworks, particularly in fields like
chemistry and biology. In these cases, AI could potentially identify
patterns or mechanisms that lead to similar discoveries, given the right
data and analytical tools. This suggests that AI could indeed contribute to
scientific innovation at levels recognized by the Nobel committee,
especially as these systems continue to evolve.