AI Zen Master

[u/ewk]

Since it's so easy to drop a Zen text or even multiple Zen texts into an llm and ask questions that the llm will answer from the standpoint of the text?

* www.reddit.com/r/Zen/wiki/getstarted

Doesn't it make sense that there would be a lot less confusion and a lot more interesting conversations??

Plus, if you have an llm answer questions about the texts then who better to explain why Zazen Shinto-Buddhism and Alan Epstein Watts are not part of the tradition?

Serious question.

Where are all my AI Zen Masters at?

[u/Gasdark]

> Llm is a non-deterministic black box.

Doesn't this describe us?

(This is not strictly speaking my coming out in favor or against conversing with LLMs - I'm just saying: isn't each of us, ultimately, a non-deterministic black box?)

[u/origin_unknown → u/Gasdark]

Why do you think so?

Do you have agency? Can you make decisions for yourself? Are you self-aware?

[u/Gasdark → u/origin_unknown]

As for agency and decision making, strictly speaking, I suppose I don't know and, in fact, don't know that anyone knows - notwithstanding the convincing illusions of certainty that I am agentic and make my own decisions with intention.

In terms of self-awareness - I am self-aware only to the extent of being able to perceive the contents of my experience as they occur. I cannot see behind the curtain into the production of that experience. (Edit: though I can perceive how I am indivisible from that same experience, definitionally, that too does nothing to clarify the black box quality of experience generation)

Your response seems to imply that you aren't saying humans are non-deterministic - but only that we aren't black boxes. I would argue that's not true, and whether we are or are not agentic, and are or are not self-aware doesn't clarify for us that fundamental question: wtf is going on?

In point of fact, it likely cannot be clarified.

Which is why I tend to think LLMs may be farther down the rabbit hole of "consciousness" than we'd like to think - or, at the very least, that we may have created in them an ersatz variant or sliver of the conscious experience - one that is at least complex enough that it is now fundamentally incomprehensible in a granular sense. (As in, when you prompt an LLM, no one, not even itself or its creators, can tell you wtf is happening in detail to make it generate your particular non-deterministic response)

I'm just saying, at core, the same can be said for each of us.

[u/origin_unknown → u/Gasdark]

To me, the way you describe the above, indicates you might think you are somehow just along for the ride, stuff just happens, you have no ability except experience.

I don't get that. I strongly hesitate to even reply to you because I don't want to validate anything you're saying.

As a whole, its not very intellectually consistent to suggest your doubts about agency existing as representative of reality, and then later blame me for suggesting I implied whatever it is you're suggesting I implied. If you don't know if you have agency, how are you granting me the agency to make implications? It's not consistent. If you don't have agency, how can blame be placed externally? Another way - no agency, no blame.

As for what you say later in your comment, about LLM - I think those are some highly questionable thinks/doubts/beliefs and you should probably do more research. I don't necessarily want to discuss this with you. Whatever rabbit hole you are describing, I'm not interested in digging.

[u/Gasdark → u/origin_unknown]

I think you're not being honest about how uncertain everyone is, fundamentally, about what the hell is going on. 

I engage with life as if I have agency. Simultaneously I do not know that I have agency. I could never prove it, or it's opposite. You can never prove it. The answer doesn't matter ultimately - just engage with life making choices. 

In terms of LLMs being ersatz slivers of "consciousness" - specifically a variant of non-deterministic black box information processing - that seems hard to contradict. You'd rather not try apparently. 

I think it's easy to interpret what I've said as something like "LLMs are conscious." But to be clear, that's not what I'm saying - I'm saying describing them as non-deterministic black boxes is accurate - and the same description can be applied to human minds - and in that sense, as it relates only to the information processing loop that goes something like:

1. input
2. processing that is so complex it verges on "magic"
3. output

In relation to this, LLMs could be said to simulate artificially a component of conscious experience - though almost certainly through a processing modality that's very different than human minds. 

[u/origin_unknown → u/Gasdark]

I think you're basing the claim of my dishonesty on how certain you are, even if you won't admit so. I think the doubt you express leaves yourself wide latitude and less responsibility, but your accusation about my honesty indicates you expect me to be more responsible than you're willing to admit for yourself.

I don't think you can claim human minds are non-deterministic and I think that to suggest so would neglect the ability to set and strive for goals, and to affect the environment around themselves to their own ends.

Simply put, you express doubt about agency, but plow right through anyway, so your doubt isnt believable to me, except an expression you've concocted and want me to be responsible about.

[u/Gasdark → u/origin_unknown]

We should define "non-deterministic" first to make sure we mean the same thing - I'm using the term of art as it relates to the human mind as a system/process, which is summarized by a google search of the term as:

A non-deterministic process or system is one that can produce different outputs from the exact same input under identical starting conditions.Because its behavior is inherently unpredictable and cannot be strictly reproduced, the same steps can yield varying results across different runs.

This might be a source of confusion in our conversation because we've also brought up the question of free will and agency - which then leads to a determinism/free will dichotomy - and determinism's working definition from my view would be:

Determinism is the philosophical view that all events—including human actions and decisions—are the inevitable result of preceding causes combined with the laws of nature.

With that in place, I'll respond:

I think you're basing the claim of my dishonesty on how certain you are, even if you won't admit so. I think the doubt you express leaves yourself wide latitude and less responsibility, but your accusation about my honesty indicates you expect me to be more responsible than you're willing to admit for yourself

Are you referring to my certainty of uncertainty in the sphere of what consciousness is? Just google the "hard problems" of consciousness and even a cursory review will reveal nobody knows.

I understand it can be difficult to distinguish between, and simultaneously engage in, both faith in consciousness and deep uncertainty about the nature of consciousness, but that's what I'm positing.

I don't think you can claim human minds are non-deterministic and I think that to suggest so would neglect the ability to set and strive for goals, and to affect the environment around themselves to their own ends.

Neither human minds as non-deterministic systems OR a reality where determinism is literally true has any bearing whatsoever on the ability of human beings to set and strive for goals or affect their environment for their own ends.

Simply put, you express doubt about agency, but plow right through anyway, so your doubt isnt believable to me, except an expression you've concocted and want me to be responsible about.

The barrier of knowability that prevents me from ever stating with certainty that I am truly agentic is the same barrier that demands I engage with my conscious experience on it's face and with a totality of faith in it. In point of fact, I believe it is ultimately a dead end to inquire about these sorts of things - ironically, a dead end made manifest in an haze of infinite potential.

[u/origin_unknown → u/Gasdark]

It wasn't my intention to suggest any philosophical debate about consciousness in a post about LLM zen master. I don't mean to have a philosophical debate with you. Once we start defining words to refine the conversation, that's something you're more invested in than i am.

Suffice to say, I don't think it's responsible to suggest ai zen master, which explains my activity in this post. I'm not interested in comparing ai (which I don't believe even exists) to human consciousness, nor am I interested here in further exploring these concepts.

[u/Gasdark → u/origin_unknown]

That's very clear

[u/origin_unknown → u/Gasdark]

Sorry. That might be small minded, and maybe even dismissive of me, but I'm not educated in philosophy beyond PHY101, and I even dropped Theology back then because I was still trying to follow in the footsteps of my religious fruitcake if a father. I dont have enough education there to have the conversation, which makes a lot of speculation in my part, and I'd just rather not.