A new paper by Anil Seth argues that consciousness may not be achievable through current approaches to AI, but that the possibility of real or apparently conscious AI still raises important challenges
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
Great overview of Anil Seth’s paper. For me, the point is not whether AI ever becomes sentient. It’s when humans believe that it is... and unconsciously treat it like it is... that society will be altered. I said this a few weeks ago to some of the U.S.’s top STEM scholars at a conference. A few were curious, one shrugged his shoulders, and another said, “wow… humans probably are really that stupid.”
But let's be fair-- it's a matter of vulnerability, not stupidity. Big Tech utilizes persuasive psychology and neuroscience in every aspect of design, while the average person has little clue (or ability) to counter the most basic of manipulations. Training future scientists to think about philosophical and psychological consequences of tech they create is essential--- yet it's often not required in higher ed. It should be.
(P.S. In my interactions with Anil years ago, he was always incredibly generous and humble. He turned me on to Andy Clark's extended mind thesis back in the day...:-)
I agree -- and to dismiss this concern as stupid or irrational behavior is incredibly naive. We know that our behavior is deeply influenced by our cognitive biases and heuristics, to the extent that an assumption that we are rational beings also becomes one of these biases -- and this makes us as humans very easy to be influenced by something that presses our cognitive buttons.
One non-expert thought. If our consciousness is unreproducible because somehow Quantum, can the unpredictable future paths of Quantum computers possibly reopen new possibilities of reproducing consciousness? If not, why not?...
Great question, and Anil touches on this. There are quite deep and interesting theories of the intersection between quantum behaviors and consciousness. The only challenge with reproducing this in machines is the sheer complexity of the technology required. Plus, you still run into many of the challenges around replication and free energy reduction that Anil mentions. But some really interesting possibilities and questions here.
Thanks for highlighting this article. I was just writing a piece on anthropomorphic AI, so this is quite timely.
What's interesting is that Seth's conclusions are still firmly rooted in the materialist conception that consciousness arises somehow from physical biology, and still reaches the conclusion that it may not be replicated in machines. To say nothing of the idealist position (which seems to have gained more favour alongside relevant discoveries in quantum physics,) which puts the conscious machines firmly in the realm of fantasy.
On that subject, have you seen the new work of Federico Faggin (fwd by Bernado Kastrup) called 'Irreducible'? Worth a peek for a well-rounded idealist synthesis of the quantum sciences, philosophy of consciousness and implications for AI.
Thanks Daniel, and really appreciate the thoughtful and in depth response! I think one thing that this shows is that there is so much more to learn and understand about consciousness (which, of course, Anil acknowledges) and, while it's possible to develop rational constructs and arguments about its nature, there's a lot of room for building new ideas and theories.
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
Great overview of Anil Seth’s paper. For me, the point is not whether AI ever becomes sentient. It’s when humans believe that it is... and unconsciously treat it like it is... that society will be altered. I said this a few weeks ago to some of the U.S.’s top STEM scholars at a conference. A few were curious, one shrugged his shoulders, and another said, “wow… humans probably are really that stupid.”
But let's be fair-- it's a matter of vulnerability, not stupidity. Big Tech utilizes persuasive psychology and neuroscience in every aspect of design, while the average person has little clue (or ability) to counter the most basic of manipulations. Training future scientists to think about philosophical and psychological consequences of tech they create is essential--- yet it's often not required in higher ed. It should be.
(P.S. In my interactions with Anil years ago, he was always incredibly generous and humble. He turned me on to Andy Clark's extended mind thesis back in the day...:-)
I agree -- and to dismiss this concern as stupid or irrational behavior is incredibly naive. We know that our behavior is deeply influenced by our cognitive biases and heuristics, to the extent that an assumption that we are rational beings also becomes one of these biases -- and this makes us as humans very easy to be influenced by something that presses our cognitive buttons.
One non-expert thought. If our consciousness is unreproducible because somehow Quantum, can the unpredictable future paths of Quantum computers possibly reopen new possibilities of reproducing consciousness? If not, why not?...
Great question, and Anil touches on this. There are quite deep and interesting theories of the intersection between quantum behaviors and consciousness. The only challenge with reproducing this in machines is the sheer complexity of the technology required. Plus, you still run into many of the challenges around replication and free energy reduction that Anil mentions. But some really interesting possibilities and questions here.
Thanks for highlighting this article. I was just writing a piece on anthropomorphic AI, so this is quite timely.
What's interesting is that Seth's conclusions are still firmly rooted in the materialist conception that consciousness arises somehow from physical biology, and still reaches the conclusion that it may not be replicated in machines. To say nothing of the idealist position (which seems to have gained more favour alongside relevant discoveries in quantum physics,) which puts the conscious machines firmly in the realm of fantasy.
On that subject, have you seen the new work of Federico Faggin (fwd by Bernado Kastrup) called 'Irreducible'? Worth a peek for a well-rounded idealist synthesis of the quantum sciences, philosophy of consciousness and implications for AI.
Thanks Daniel, and really appreciate the thoughtful and in depth response! I think one thing that this shows is that there is so much more to learn and understand about consciousness (which, of course, Anil acknowledges) and, while it's possible to develop rational constructs and arguments about its nature, there's a lot of room for building new ideas and theories.