Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit
There are people whose brains don’t form new memories anymore after an accident or surgery, and they eternally live in the time before it happened, and have no memory of what happened a minute ago. Still they are conscious.
I think it's a little more complicated than that. In a 50 First Dates type of scenario, their ability to form certain types of memories is damaged, not non-existent. And I would argue that with enough brain damage someone like an extreme lobotomy victim may stop being considered conscious.
I’m not familiar with 50 First Dates, I was thinking of cases like Clive Wearing [0]. I would agree that consciousness requires some sort of ultra-short-term working memory, but I also think that mechanisms similar to CoT loops can conceivably fulfill that role. Today’s generative AIs consist of more than just the static network-of-weights model.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clive_Wearing#Amnesia

"Wearing can learn new procedures and even a few facts, not from episodic memory or encoding, but by acquiring new procedural memories through repetition. For example, having watched a certain video recording multiple times on successive days, he never had any memory of ever seeing the video or knowing the content, but he was able to anticipate certain parts of the content without remembering how he learned them."

Honestly, that's a pretty messy state of consciousness and I wouldn't proudly crow that my AI is conscious if that's as good as it got

I was like this for a bit and you still have memories from like 30 seconds to minutes ago, but after that you have a cliff where you don't remember.

I don't think LLMs structurally even get the 30 seconds part. It's literally 0 for them.

I'd argue that the context window is analogous to short-term memory. It's functional but limited in duration, and if you overload it, it starts to fail.

It's the long-term memory (i.e. learned experiences feeding back and directly altering the content of the core brain, or model) that is missing.

The context window is so flawed that I wouldn't consider it memory.

It feels like notes about the situation rather than it being in memory. Memory has more "attention". I think that "it starts to fail" is load bearing here.

I feel like memory has like 5 parts, and LLMs are missing 2 of them:

current working memory

short term what is immediately happening without it being in "RAM". I differentiate here vs working in like thinking fast and slow. Keeping things in working memory is work! You can vibe away short term memory. I had excellent short term memory while I was messed up, I could keep time well. I think LLMs can do this with notes.

mid term: Vague awareness of things like what day a week it is or what you did 2 hours ago. This is where my memory personally failed

long term memory of experiences. You can fake this with memory.md

generalized wisdom for pattern matching long term memories

LLMs seem to be missing that part I was missing. Im probably projecting and anthropomorphizing. But i relate: I would confabulate a ton and didn't know anything was wrong for a while but things seemed off.

Context is like working memory but not short term or mid term. I think you can imply short term with big enough context.

My categories are purely anthropomorphic to me but just wanted to say where I disagreed.

It’s nonzero, because they carry state while performing inference, and in the surrounding processes like chain-of-thought and mixture-of-experts.
I think they have working memory but not short term memory. I suppose that's pedantic or anthropomorphizing but it feels like I felt tbh
They are conscious because even for short periods of time they do form memories and those change them even if only briefly. They think on their own too. It is a very limited level of consciousness though.
Is that any different from an LLM having a context window?
Yes, LLMs don't think on their own, for one; they think when you invoke them.
1) Many people claim to have no internal monologue.

2) We are prompted (invoked) by our environment continuously.

3) If you go unconscious due to fainting or drugs you too will stop thinking.

I don;t get this kind of answers.

- A motor is something that create a force to push a vehicle.

- Oh yeah? My neighbour car does not have wheels and sit on concrete blocks, the vehicle does not move and yet we all agree it has a motor. So it means that I can claim that this other thing that does not move has a motor too.

Sure, human can _some times_ not do some stuffs, but the fact that they can do these stuffs sometimes is the point.

Doing these stuffs is the hard thing. Doing these stuffs is the proof that the machine has what it takes. It does not matter if someone cannot do that stuff, it does not imply that their internal system is not complex enough to potentially do it. But the fact that some people can do that stuff is the demonstration that inside a human skull, there is a system that is complex enough to potentially do it. Unless you can prove that people who don't do it have a fundamentally different system inside their skull, then you cannot pretend that they should be considered as having a less complex system.

exactly! so the arguments against the AI not prompting itself is not a refutation just as it would not be for a person.
Uh?

Human _can_ check themselves. They don't _always_ check themselves.

Motor _can_ move vehicle. They don't _always_ move vehicle.

LLM _cannot_ check themselves. They _never_ can. It is not that some don't, they just cannot, they are not a system complex enough to do so.

So, yes, it is a refutation. If you have something that _never_ can move a vehicle, this thing does not qualify as a motor, even if some motor, sometimes, don't move a vehicle.

And if your next argument is "yeah but I would argue you don't need to check yourself to be conscious or to understand things", then you just redefine the definition that is owned by your interlocutor. Your interlocutor is saying that this is a criteria they are expecting. Good for you if you are not expecting this criteria. But the problem is that the answer is not "this criteria is not expected", the answer is "I change the criteria from 'being capable to in some circumstances' into 'does always do it in any circumstances'".

loading story #48402808
That could be easily fixed by providing the AI with a constant stream of input.

For humans, part of the input of the human mind comes from the continuous processes and clocks within the human body, so it’s questionable whether the brain could “think on its own” without such input either.

The continuous input for the human arises naturally, it doesn't arise naturally for an LLM unless we direct it so. Our consciousness is bootstrapped, the LLM isn't.
We have virtually no idea how consciousness arises in the human brain. Furthermore, what is “natural” supposed mean here, and why should it matter for consciousness whether some prerequisite arises naturally or not?
loading story #48403398
I think you have grazed my stance on this topic in the sense of what separates LLMs from complete human (or any other biological life) sentience.

It's the constant sensory input of the world and the realization and drive to survive as the second order effect of it. Mortality, vulnerability to external factors codified as input could in fact allow the LLM to independ as sentience.

Of course besides the sensors, it would also need a way to affect the physical world, and to be able to monitor the degradation if its own hardware, but when that barrier is crossed, it would be much closer to full sentience than whatever we have right now (which is nowhere near sentience or AGI).

Okay but this state is formed in text. Text isn't conscious
not really, it’s ultimately formed in electromagnetic fields.
Interesting point but even those people’s brains aren’t immutable. The have habit change without memory.
True, but I don’t see how that relates to consciousness. An LLM being continuously RLHF-trained also changes its habits; that alone doesn’t make it conscious.
The starting file may be immutable, but the whole processing of that file is very dynamic and intense. Maybe, if there is some consciousness, it lies somewhere during that processing.
Someone getting in an accident that chops their leg off doesn’t mean humans don’t have legs. Come on man.
they still have memory, just not new ones - they lived experiences
An LLM’s training could be seen as lived experience, and the fact that LLMs can output long sequences from their training material can be interpreted as them remembering those parts.

Also, how does that relate to consciousness? I don’t think that past episodic memory is necessary for consciousness.