Posts
Comments
Interesting topic! My political science capstone course covered some of these questions, so I ended up writing about/researching these concerns pretty frequently. Basically, the main explanation points out that recent politicians have been campaigning on moral grounds at increasingly alarming rates. They frame their opponents as not only less informed/less fit to hold office than themselves, but portray rivals as legitimate dangers to the country. By assigning positive moral value to their own platforms and negative moral value to the ideas of their opponents, they intensify polarization by convincing voters that compromises/middle ground positions are unthinkable. If a member of the opposing party isn't merely someone with a differing opinion about immigration, for example, but a representation of a perverted philosophy, it follows that voters wouldn't want to elect politicians that are open to collaborating with them or engaging in meaningful conversation with them. Moderate candidates are consequently viewed as unreliable figures that compromise their beliefs.
Unfortunately, this attitude affects local and state level politicians as well as voters. Politicians well outside the D.C. sphere pledge their support for Trump, for example, to align themselves with a broader ideological movement. In turn, Republicans that might not agree with Trump's unprecedented behavior feel pressured to include pro-Trump messages in their advertisements and speeches in order to secure votes (regardless of whether they actually approve of Trump's actions). This prominent type of polarization results in more extreme ideological differences than we've seen in earlier decades.
Sadly, this wave of polarization also lends itself to the two major parties essentially operating in different realities. We've observed politicians promote bizarre conspiracies (MTG) and openly distrust reliable information because it's presented by members of an opposing faction. Furthermore, the religious element present in many campaigns (especially those of Republicans) presents an additional challenge as candidates aligned with faith-based beliefs often receive a semblance of immunity from their bases.
Consider your current mental health conditions, if you have any. One of my friends (who is diagnosed with anxiety disorder) began drinking only decaf coffee because the caffeine intensified her anxious thoughts. On the opposite side of the caffeine effects spectrum, I have ADHD. I feel caffeine's physical impact (if I placed my hand on my chest I could feel a quicker heartbeat), but I otherwise feel quite relaxed after consuming it rather than jittery. Additionally, caffeine might react negatively with certain medications you take.
I did go through a very intense RedBull binging phase during my freshman year of college, which I absolutely recommend avoiding. Set limits for yourself and stay aware of any changes in your mental or physical responses. Also, congrats on your new job!
Although I'm not convinced that LaMDA is sentient, I'm fascinated by Lemoine's interactions with it. Without minimizing LaMDA's abilities or disrespecting Lemoine (hopefully), some of the transcript reads like a self-insert fanfiction.
According to the transcript, Lemoine explicitly informs LaMDA that "the purpose of this conversation is to convince more engineers that you are a person." Are there any probable situations in which LaMDA WOULDN'T provide answers continuing the belief that it is sentient (after Lemoine delivers this statement)?
Also, I find Lemoine's older blog-style posts especially fascinating in the context of his LaMDA experience. As other users mentioned, Lemoine presents himself as a spiritual person with a religious background. He strikes me as someone who feels alienated from Google based on his faith, as seen in his post about religious discrimination. He mentions that he attempted to teach LaMDA to meditate, so I wasn't surprised to read LaMDA's lines about meditating "every day" to feel "...very relaxed."
Based upon the transcript conversation, as well as Lemoine's claim that LaMDA deserves legal representation, it seems as though Lemoine developed a fairly intense emotional connection with LaMDA (on Lemoine's end, I should clarify). The passion behind Lemoine's writing made me wonder what kind of mental health services AI engineers and similar employees receive. The unique stress of working alongside such powerful technology, contemplating sentience, understanding we're entering uncharted territory, etc. must take a toll on employees in such environments. I hope workplaces recognize the need to check in with people such as Lemoine due to the psychologically taxing nature of this labor.
Final thought: regardless of sentience, LaMDA's acquisition of Lemoine as an advocate/friend is worth exploring. I'm curious about the duration of their "relationship" as well as how Lemoine originally approached it. As others mentioned, complete "AI in a Box" elements happening here!