An LLM is a stateless stochastic function ran over your prompt (plus whatever system prompt) as input.
If you genuinely believe that the LLM is conscious, that means every time the function stops running (i.e. stops producing output tokens), the consciousness ends.
This is far closer to death than to, say, sleep, because prompting again doesn’t “wake” the LLM, it just runs the function again, from the top; as if a digital twin was given a transcript of the previous conversation and asked to take it from here.
(Obviously, “murder” was somewhat tongue-in-cheek, and this doesn’t even remotely meet any legal definition of murder. I was mostly poking fun at people who think LLMs are alive, without thinking through the implications. Personally, I think the idea that LLMs are alive/conscious/sentient is very often linked to not understanding that LLMs are not, in fact, a constantly-running ghost in the shell, thinking about and remembering things in the background.)
That doesn’t really change anything. Every function invocation is still completely separate. Doesn’t matter if it’s a single conversation where you always answer, or parallel conversations.
What? I explicitly do not believe you can “murder” an LLM, I’m saying that due to the way the technology actually works, that if someone genuinely believes an LLM is sentient or alive, then sending a message to it mist also mean it “dies” afterwards.
LLMs are obviously neither sentient nor alive (and therefore the concept of murder doesn’t even remotely apply).
If someone truly believes LLMs are sentient, then they must under no circumstances prompt them even once; that would be murder.
Please explain without sounding crazy.
An LLM is a stateless stochastic function ran over your prompt (plus whatever system prompt) as input.
If you genuinely believe that the LLM is conscious, that means every time the function stops running (i.e. stops producing output tokens), the consciousness ends.
This is far closer to death than to, say, sleep, because prompting again doesn’t “wake” the LLM, it just runs the function again, from the top; as if a digital twin was given a transcript of the previous conversation and asked to take it from here.
(Obviously, “murder” was somewhat tongue-in-cheek, and this doesn’t even remotely meet any legal definition of murder. I was mostly poking fun at people who think LLMs are alive, without thinking through the implications. Personally, I think the idea that LLMs are alive/conscious/sentient is very often linked to not understanding that LLMs are not, in fact, a constantly-running ghost in the shell, thinking about and remembering things in the background.)
deleted by creator
In this absolutely ridiculous context, shouldn’t we continually prompt the model to keep it “alive” lol
That doesn’t really change anything. Every function invocation is still completely separate. Doesn’t matter if it’s a single conversation where you always answer, or parallel conversations.
Absolutely not! It changes everything, and explicitly because said so! Since we are making shit up to begin with lol 🤣
We walked away from “reason” the moment we entered a conversation about “murdering” an LLM… LOL
What? I explicitly do not believe you can “murder” an LLM, I’m saying that due to the way the technology actually works, that if someone genuinely believes an LLM is sentient or alive, then sending a message to it mist also mean it “dies” afterwards.
LLMs are obviously neither sentient nor alive (and therefore the concept of murder doesn’t even remotely apply).