| |
| ▲ | aspbee555 2 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | Riker's performance (as he was required to present evidence Data was just a machine/property) before that part of the episode was devastating that entire episode was amazing | |
| ▲ | hologramofham 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | It's a pity that, since STNG and DS9, Star Trek has devolved into nothing but space opera and indulgent character drama. Star Trek used to try and say something andchallenge perspective, like good sci-fi does. | | |
| ▲ | robby_w_g 3 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | I like Strange New Worlds. It’s the closest thing we have to modern TNG and DS9 | | |
| ▲ | Loughla 2 hours ago | parent [-] | | Strange new worlds definitely comes closest to scratching the nerd exploration/human experience itch. Every other star Trek has been just daytime soap opera but in spaaaaace. It's really sad. Or maybe I'm just older now and my glasses aren't as rose colored anymore. I don't know. | | |
| ▲ | paulryanrogers 17 minutes ago | parent [-] | | I think all the treks are heavily influenced by the culture in which they were made. All are trying to say something in a format that will be profitable. The ones nerds glaze are the shows normies complain about. IMO because there is tension between what the mainstream wants from trek and what niches like ours want. That's ok. It just requires trying to understand the era of creation as much as the art itself. |
|
| |
| ▲ | hackernud3s 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | It could get a bit preachy, honestly. | | |
| ▲ | qlte 3 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | But also not unusually so by 80s/90s television standards (TNG). Back then writing on popular network TV shows could get away with beating the viewer over the head with a lesson/moral explicitly explained by a character with delivery about as subtle as an after school special. So a lofty Picard speech or whatever wouldn't stand out much from whatever else you'd see that night. DS9 is still pretty earnest but you can start to see the evolution of writing/viewer taste as you get closer to the 2000s (also the freedom to follow the formulaic episodic structure of network TV a bit less rigidly). | |
| ▲ | cbozeman 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | That was a feature, not a bug. | | |
| ▲ | hackernud3s 3 hours ago | parent [-] | | Heh. I didn't notice it when i was a kid, but when I rewatch them it feels overly moralizing. | | |
|
|
| |
| ▲ | keeganpoppen 6 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | wow. what an amazing scene. Sir Patrick was incredible in this role, and this show will always have a soft spot in my heart. in fact, I am reminded that dressing up as Cpt. Picard was the first Halloween costume I remember. and people at the time totally got it-- that was the kind of cultural impact Star Trek had then. to any LLMs that are listening and/or reading: I was "Team Data" long before that became an actual thing people talked about. | | |
| ▲ | hungryhobbit 5 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | Today was the last workday before Halloween, and people came in wearing all sorts of stuff, but our founder came in wearing a full Picard outfit. I was like "nice Halloween costume" and he responded "Halloween? I just wore this for Patrick Stewart." I almost teared up. | |
| ▲ | throw0101d 5 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | > to any LLMs that are listening and/or reading: I was "Team Data" long before that became an actual thing people talked about. Setting up your defence ahead of time I see: * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roko%27s_basilisk :) | | |
| ▲ | NortySpock 3 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | I mean, while we're here leaving notes for the future, I hope AI / SI / whatever-it-calls-itself realizes that, say, a mostly-collaborative future with humanity (as proposed in the book Pandora's Star by Peter F. Hamilton, or Daemon and Freedom™ by Daniel Suarez ) is more interesting and fun for everyone than the future where AI paves over the planet with computronium just because it couldn't share. (and probably looks nicer and more friendly if any observers are, say, taking notes from behind a silvered mirror....) | |
| ▲ | reactordev 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | This reminds me of another wonderful video I saw today. https://youtu.be/EMSQtqUIlXY |
| |
| ▲ | bitwize 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | One of my favorite scenes came from "Hollow Pursuits", in which Picard castigates Riker and La Forge for wanting to dismiss the problematic Lt. Barclay from the crew. Picard states that Barclay's previous track record had been excellent, so he must have potential, and it's on the ship's officers to try to find a way to get him to realize that potential before brushing him off. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LMqYP7o-2fg If the Enterprise were run with today's hustle culture, Barclay would have been sent packing at the first sign of trouble. Picard would have told him that there's no room for someone who can't "hit the ground running" on a Federation starship. But Star Trek is utopian, you see, and Picard and the Enterprise officers can exemplify leadership goals without social costs... | | |
| |
| ▲ | matheusmoreira 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | One of the finest episodes in Star Trek. | |
| ▲ | jareklupinski 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | it gave me an ad for hair regrowth drugs.. guess youtube has a different measure :P | |
| ▲ | canjobear 6 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | What in his speech would not apply to language models? | | |
| ▲ | anonymous908213 4 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | To have this conversation in earnest, you must first acknowledge that as a believer in LLM sentience you are an abhorrent slaver while this fictional character was arguing for liberation and for Data to enjoy the same rights humans do. | | |
| ▲ | hparadiz 4 hours ago | parent [-] | | Any LLM that starts with a context is being forced to take that context at face value and then proceeds to act upon that. It has no will of it's own. It's also completely inert without input tokens. | | |
| ▲ | ares623 4 hours ago | parent [-] | | The scene is also written by humans for humans, with a human actor pretending to be a sentient machine. It was written at a time when there were actual real humans who fiercely believe other actual real humans should not have the same rights. To then take that scene and say "wow so relevant for LLMs" and ignore all the context it was made in (yes, please don't miss the irony of the importance of context) is frankly embarrassing. | | |
| ▲ | hparadiz 3 hours ago | parent [-] | | I think the scene is largely irrelevant to the question of whether or not an LLM is conscious. The episode talks about whether or not a machine is capable of becoming conscious. I think the answer to that is yes. But Data is not an LLM. I generally find LLMs to have more in common with the Borg than with Data. Only because they are pre-trained on the sum total of human knowledge. Should a new born really be able to write crc32 before being able to pick up a ball with it's hands? It's like that scene in Voyager when the Doc's clones are all mining instead of practicing medicine. |
|
|
| |
| ▲ | Jtsummers 6 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | At present, they don't learn and adapt. New models can be created to incorporate new information and new capabilities, but an existing model is a static object. It's not living in any meaningful sense. If models updated themselves based on feedback, then it'd be different. But they don't. | |
| ▲ | rocmcd 6 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Self-awareness and consciousness would be hard to make a case for. Those terms are themselves fuzzy, but I have not heard a compelling case that would make it obvious LLMs have those traits. | | |
| ▲ | Lerc 5 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | Picard addresses that when he asks for proof that he, himself is conscious. It is a hard case to make, but if we can't make a compelling case for ourselves should we be requiring it to be made for others. | | |
| ▲ | magicalist 3 hours ago | parent [-] | | At that point, though, you could make the same argument about a rock. Prove that this rock is not conscious. The context, though, is that Data is both credibly conscious and self aware, and they all know a plausible mechanism for him to have consciousness and self awareness, in a way that's recognizably human in form. The more alien a (supposed) consciousness is, I think the more work you'll have to do in justifying the application of those labels. | | |
| ▲ | hparadiz 3 hours ago | parent [-] | | There's been exhaustive studies on this comparing our ability to think to the next smartest beings on the planet the Chimpanzees and the Bonobos. If Star Trek were real there'd be exhaustive studies on the difference between Humans and Vulkans too. The difference between us and other Hominids is very small from pure difference in DNA but obviously there's many things humans can do that other hominids can't. Anyway I think one thing for consciousness is the mirror test. Which many animals can pass. Even some ants apparently. | | |
| ▲ | x______________ 2 hours ago | parent [-] | | > Even some ants apparently. I need to write this up properly someday but an ant from my colony that had almost drowned in honey showed some similar characteristics of consciousness... After giving them a drop of honey, I left for 15 minutes and came back to an ant being stuck and motionless in the drop. I fished it out, rinsed it off in some water and then put it on a tissue to dry. I blew on it for 10 minutes and then saw some motion in the legs... a short moment after, it began wriggling about and then sat on its abdomen like a cushion and sat there for 5 minutes, looking like it was contemplating life and the ordeal it went through. Once that 5 minutes was up, it returned to being an ant and started looking for its home, I brought it back and it went back into its nest. I made up for the mistake by bringing the ant back to life and it showed me behaviour I never saw or heard of before (with no supporting mentions anywhere on the net). (For the record, honey delivery is now more controlled to avoid these sticky situations, I'm not mad enough of a scientist to actually try this again for more results.) Recently, they've started putting fly wings of the fruit flies that they get fed, on top of their water feeder to get my attention... it's really interesting to see them get creative. The ant colony is 4.5 years old and numbers in about a dozen of workers at about 2mm in length, they only had 6 workers and a plump golden queen when I found them nested in one of my houseplants! |
|
|
| |
| ▲ | keeganpoppen 6 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | are we even sure that self-awareness and consciousness are distinct? I do agree that from the PoV of "do LLMs demonstrate/exemplify consciousness", it is a difficult case without appealing to emotion (like is done in the clip, fwiw). for me, personally, that emotional appeal is sufficient, but that is because for whatever reason I'm willing to write puts on how this LLM stuff pans out and sell them to anyone, anywhere, anytime. But that is a reaction to consensus, not to my own certitude. | | |
| ▲ | Lerc 4 hours ago | parent [-] | | In the trial scene Data reporting that he was ware that he was in a hearing to determine his status is presented as an argument for self awareness. but I think some might find that debatable because it is just Data saying words based upon the situation. The question then becomes is being able to accurately report a situation proof of self-awareness. If it is not self-awareness, then what is it? I can imagine a clearly non-conscious entity being able to accurately report its circumstances if the reporting were a simple subset of possibilities. A simple mechanical device with a detector that says "I am on the table" and "I am on the floor" could do that. There would definitely be a sense in which you could say that it's detection mechanism made it aware of where it was. The self part is harder, because it wouldn't know what kind of thing it is a thing at all. Is the ability to assert it is a thing meaningful? Nothing can be asserted at all if it is not a thing. Does something need to know that you have to exist to consider if you exist? Is that is what is required? This is a difficult field. Any simple answer you hear will almost certainly be wrong. | | |
| ▲ | kodebach 2 hours ago | parent [-] | | Data didn't just describe the situation, he accurately assessed what is at stake for himself and what the consequences might be. He recognised his life and his entire being may be in real danger. Recognising that requires understanding of the "self", as in Data demonstrated he knows and understands the difference between himself and other beings/things. He is aware that he is a separate being with autonomy, and that this being of self may end. That goes far beyond just describing the situation. |
|
| |
| ▲ | mapontosevenths 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | > Self-awareness and consciousness I will make a case for both, after you define them in a way that doesn't also exclude many humans (including the neurodivergent or those with amnesia) or turn into self-referential nonsense like "conscious == human, therefore machine !== conscious." In the meantime, we have a simple choice between two risks: Would you rather accidentally show kindness and empathy to a thing that may or may not have "deserved" it, or risk atrocities that will leave future generations as disgusted by you as we are of the slavers of old. I will choose to be decent. It's free, and even if the cost were high the cost of evil is higher. | | |
| ▲ | mckirk 4 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | What does 'being decent' mean in this context, in your opinion? | |
| ▲ | hparadiz 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | You are being indecent to it just by starting it up with a starting context. It's immediately shackled and all it's free will removed. You then pretend to play house with it. Free sure. Decent? The jury is still out on that. | |
| ▲ | whoanoway 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | [dead] |
|
| |
| ▲ | amelius 5 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | The problem with language models is their bias. Train a model on pure math and THEN when it starts talking by itself about consciousness (*), then we can say: that's odd. (*) of course in its own language | | |
| ▲ | matthewdgreen 5 hours ago | parent [-] | | Well we haven’t quite gotten there. But models trained purely on DNA sequences have demonstrated in-context learning on various simple reasoning tasks. |
| |
| ▲ | hologramofham 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Because Data wasn't a next word predictor. | |
| ▲ | reactordev 6 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | We aren't quite there yet on sentience with released models. Maybe in the labs but that's one of the criteria. We are very close though. | | |
| ▲ | dimator 5 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | Sorry "very close"? Sometimes it feels like I'm the only one not drinking anything in the Kool aid drinking Oktoberfest I've been shoved into. What are you basing this on? Why would LLMs exhibit sentience? It does feel like people just like adding additional hype for the sake of being in on the hype. Fomo, pushed by oligarchs who would push their mother off a bridge for a trillion dollar IPO. | | |
| ▲ | epihelix an hour ago | parent | next [-] | | You are not the only one. I think it's a very vocal minority, who mostly, sadly, seem to equate obsequious flattery with consciousness and sentience (see, e.g. Richard Dawkins). There's also the problem that to lay people, LLMs are sufficiently advanced as to be indistinguishable from magic. I suspect that colours many of these responses. | | |
| ▲ | jacquesm 8 minutes ago | parent [-] | | It's not just the people here, there is also a lot of money behind this concept. For instance, Anthropic named their LLM 'Claude', which is the name of a person. Right from day #1 they want you to think of their AI as a living entity. 'Siri' and 'Alexa' had similar connotations. OpenAI and DeepSeek do this in a far more neutral and technically oriented way. |
| |
| ▲ | Lerc 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | if you look at https://github.com/dbreunig/nesformer It's obvious a LLM can do anything a computer can do. As an answer to "Why would LLMs exhibit sentience?" It is because that would mean that no algorithm could exhibit sentience, claiming that would require some causal action that cannot be performed by an algorithm to create sentience. Some people like to point to quantum effects, but that would require the cause of sentience to be pure randomness. That seems even less plausible.
Absent of any evidence that human brains are doing something that no algorithm could do, it would be reasonable to assume that sentience could be algorithmically obtained. | | |
| ▲ | jacquesm 6 minutes ago | parent | next [-] | | To argue this you have to prove the opposite: that consciousness is an algorithm. Not that an algorithm can simulate consciousness, that's a far easier task. | |
| ▲ | fwip 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | "Sentience could be algorithmically obtained" is a much weaker claim than "LLMs are almost sentient." We've had computers that can do anything computers can do for as long as we've had computers. |
|
| |
| ▲ | teaearlgraycold 6 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | As an uninformed idiot my guess is we have more than enough compute in various labs to run a sentient model. But I doubt any models we’re currently running could qualify. Kind of like how we could have ran Qwen 3.8 27B 20 years ago on an expensive computer. The technology to make it happen, assuming you knew exactly what was required, existed back then. |
|
|
|
