民间心理学将意识归因于大型语言模型

IF 3.1 Q1 PSYCHOLOGY, BIOLOGICAL
Clara Colombatto, Stephen M Fleming
{"title":"民间心理学将意识归因于大型语言模型","authors":"Clara Colombatto, Stephen M Fleming","doi":"10.1093/nc/niae013","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Technological advances raise new puzzles and challenges for cognitive science and the study of how humans think about and interact with artificial intelligence (AI). For example, the advent of large language models and their human-like linguistic abilities has raised substantial debate regarding whether or not AI could be conscious. Here, we consider the question of whether AI could have subjective experiences such as feelings and sensations (‘phenomenal consciousness’). While experts from many fields have weighed in on this issue in academic and public discourse, it remains unknown whether and how the general population attributes phenomenal consciousness to AI. We surveyed a sample of US residents (n = 300) and found that a majority of participants were willing to attribute some possibility of phenomenal consciousness to large language models. These attributions were robust, as they predicted attributions of mental states typically associated with phenomenality—but also flexible, as they were sensitive to individual differences such as usage frequency. Overall, these results show how folk intuitions about AI consciousness can diverge from expert intuitions—with potential implications for the legal and ethical status of AI.","PeriodicalId":52242,"journal":{"name":"Neuroscience of Consciousness","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.1000,"publicationDate":"2024-04-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Folk psychological attributions of consciousness to large language models\",\"authors\":\"Clara Colombatto, Stephen M Fleming\",\"doi\":\"10.1093/nc/niae013\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Technological advances raise new puzzles and challenges for cognitive science and the study of how humans think about and interact with artificial intelligence (AI). For example, the advent of large language models and their human-like linguistic abilities has raised substantial debate regarding whether or not AI could be conscious. Here, we consider the question of whether AI could have subjective experiences such as feelings and sensations (‘phenomenal consciousness’). While experts from many fields have weighed in on this issue in academic and public discourse, it remains unknown whether and how the general population attributes phenomenal consciousness to AI. We surveyed a sample of US residents (n = 300) and found that a majority of participants were willing to attribute some possibility of phenomenal consciousness to large language models. These attributions were robust, as they predicted attributions of mental states typically associated with phenomenality—but also flexible, as they were sensitive to individual differences such as usage frequency. Overall, these results show how folk intuitions about AI consciousness can diverge from expert intuitions—with potential implications for the legal and ethical status of AI.\",\"PeriodicalId\":52242,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Neuroscience of Consciousness\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-04-11\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Neuroscience of Consciousness\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1093/nc/niae013\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"PSYCHOLOGY, BIOLOGICAL\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Neuroscience of Consciousness","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/nc/niae013","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, BIOLOGICAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

技术进步给认知科学以及人类如何思考人工智能(AI)并与之互动的研究带来了新的困惑和挑战。例如,大型语言模型及其类似人类的语言能力的出现,引发了关于人工智能是否有意识的大量争论。在此,我们将探讨人工智能是否会有主观体验,如感受和感觉("现象意识")。虽然许多领域的专家都在学术和公共讨论中对这一问题发表了自己的看法,但普通民众是否以及如何将现象意识归因于人工智能仍是个未知数。我们对美国居民(n = 300)进行了抽样调查,发现大多数参与者愿意将现象意识的某种可能性归因于大型语言模型。这些归因是稳健的,因为它们预测了通常与现象相关的心理状态的归因,但也是灵活的,因为它们对使用频率等个体差异很敏感。总之,这些结果表明了关于人工智能意识的民间直觉与专家直觉之间的差异--这对人工智能的法律和伦理地位具有潜在的影响。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Folk psychological attributions of consciousness to large language models
Technological advances raise new puzzles and challenges for cognitive science and the study of how humans think about and interact with artificial intelligence (AI). For example, the advent of large language models and their human-like linguistic abilities has raised substantial debate regarding whether or not AI could be conscious. Here, we consider the question of whether AI could have subjective experiences such as feelings and sensations (‘phenomenal consciousness’). While experts from many fields have weighed in on this issue in academic and public discourse, it remains unknown whether and how the general population attributes phenomenal consciousness to AI. We surveyed a sample of US residents (n = 300) and found that a majority of participants were willing to attribute some possibility of phenomenal consciousness to large language models. These attributions were robust, as they predicted attributions of mental states typically associated with phenomenality—but also flexible, as they were sensitive to individual differences such as usage frequency. Overall, these results show how folk intuitions about AI consciousness can diverge from expert intuitions—with potential implications for the legal and ethical status of AI.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Neuroscience of Consciousness
Neuroscience of Consciousness Psychology-Clinical Psychology
CiteScore
6.90
自引率
2.40%
发文量
16
审稿时长
19 weeks
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信