Connect with us

Uncategorized

Op-ed: Exploring the boundaries of simulated consciousness with LMMs

Can AI systems like OpenAI’s GPT4, Anthropic’s Claude 2, or Meta’s Llama 2 help identify the origins and nuances of the concept of ‘consciousness?’…

Published

on

Can AI systems like OpenAI’s GPT4, Anthropic’s Claude 2, or Meta’s Llama 2 help identify the origins and nuances of the concept of ‘consciousness?’

Advances in computational models and artificial intelligence open new vistas in understanding complex systems, including the tantalizing puzzle of consciousness. I recently wondered,

“Could a system as basic as cellular automata, such as Conway’s Game of Life (GoL), exhibit traits akin to ‘consciousness’ if evolved under the right conditions?”

Even more intriguingly, could advanced AI models like Large Language Models (LLM) aid in identifying or even facilitating such emergent properties? This op-ed explores these questions by proposing a novel experiment that seeks to integrate cellular automata, evolutionary algorithms, and cutting-edge AI models.

The idea that complex systems can emerge from simple rules is a tempting prospect for researchers in fields ranging from biology to artificial intelligence. In particular, whether “consciousness” can evolve from simple cellular automata systems, like Conway’s Game of Life, poses ethical and philosophical dilemmas.

Consciousness evolved

Consciousness is a subject that has fascinated philosophers, neuroscientists, and theologians alike. However, the concept is yet to be fully understood. On the one hand, we have traditional views that align consciousness with the notion of a “soul,” sometimes positing divine creation as the source. On the other hand, we have emerging perspectives that see consciousness as a product of complex computation within our biological “hardware.”

The advent of advanced AI models like Large Language Models (LLMs) and Large Modal Models (LMMs) has transformed our ability to analyze and understand complex data sets. These models can recognize patterns, predict, and offer remarkably accurate insights. Their application is no longer restricted to natural language processing but extends to various domains, including simulations and complex systems. Here, we explore the potential of integrating these AI models with cellular automata to identify and understand forms of artificial ‘consciousness.’

Conway’s Game of Life

Inspired by the pioneering work in cellular automata, notably Conway’s Game of Life (GoL), I propose an experiment that adds layers of complexity to these cells, imbuing them with rudimentary genetic codes, neural networks, and even Large Multimodal Models (LMMs) like GPT4-V. The goal is to see if any form of fundamental “consciousness” evolves within this dynamic and interactive environment.

Conway’s GoL is a cellular automaton invented by mathematician John Conway in 1970. It’s a grid of cells that can be either alive or dead. The grid evolves over discrete time steps according to simple rules: a live cell with 2 or 3 live neighbors stays alive; otherwise, it dies. A dead cell with exactly 3 live neighbors becomes alive.

Below are some examples of patterns that have been discovered within GoL.

Conway’s Game of Life

Despite its simplicity, the game demonstrates how complex patterns and behaviors can emerge from basic rules, making it a popular model for studying complex systems and artificial life.

The Experiment: A New Frontier

This makes it an ideal foundation for the experiment, offering a platform to investigate how fundamental consciousness could evolve under the right conditions.

The experiment would create cells with richer attributes like neural networks and genetic codes. These cells would inhabit a dynamic grid environment with features like hazards and food. An evolutionary algorithm involving mutation, recombination, and selection based on a fitness function would allow cells to adapt. Reinforcement learning could enable goal-oriented behavior.

The experiment would be staged, beginning with establishing cell complexity and environment rules. Evolution would then be introduced through mechanisms like genetic variation and selection pressures. Later stages would incorporate learning algorithms enabling adaptive behavior. Extensive metrics, data logging, and visualizations would monitor the simulation’s progress.

Running the simulation long-term could reveal emergent complexity and signs of fundamental consciousness, though the current understanding of consciousness makes this speculative. The value lies in systematically investigating open questions around consciousness’ origins through evolution and learning.

Rigorously testing hypotheses that incorporate fundamental mechanisms thought to be involved could yield theoretical insights, even if full consciousness does not emerge. As a simplified yet expansive evolution model, it allows for examining these mechanisms in isolation or combination.

Success could motivate new directions like exploring alternative environments and selection pressures. Failure would also be informative.

Integrating GPT-4-like models

Integrating a model akin to GPT-4 into the experiment could provide a nuanced layer to the study of consciousness. Currently, GPT-4 is a feed-forward neural network designed to produce output based solely on predetermined inputs.

The model’s architecture may need to be fundamentally extended to allow for the possibility of evolving consciousness. Introducing recurrent neural mechanisms, feedback loops, or more dynamic architectures could make the model’s behavior more analogous to systems displaying rudimentary awareness forms.

Furthermore, learning and adaptation are vital elements in developing complex traits like consciousness. In its existing form, GPT-4 cannot learn or adapt after its initial training phase. Therefore, a reinforcement learning layer could be added to the model to enable adaptive behavior. Although this would introduce substantial engineering challenges, it could prove pivotal in observing evolution in simulated environments.

The role of sensory experience in consciousness is another facet worth exploring. To facilitate this, GPT-4 could be interfaced with other models trained to process different types of sensory data, such as visual or auditory inputs. This would offer the model a rudimentary ‘perception’ of its simulated environment, thereby adding a layer of complexity to the experiment.

Another avenue for investigation lies in enabling complex interactions within the model. The phenomenon of consciousness is often linked to social interaction and cooperation. Allowing GPT-4 to engage with other instances of itself or with different models in complex ways could be crucial in observing emergent behaviors indicative of consciousness.

Self-awareness or self-referential capabilities could also be integrated into the model. While this would be a challenging feature to implement, having a form of ‘self-awareness,’ however rudimentary, could yield fascinating results and be considered a step toward fundamental consciousness.

Ethical considerations become crucial since the end goal is to explore the possible emergence of consciousness. Rigorous oversight mechanisms need to be established to monitor ethical dilemmas such as simulated suffering, raising questions that extend into philosophy and morality.

Philosophical, practical, and ethical considerations

The approach doesn’t merely pose scientific questions; it dives deep into the philosophy of mind and existence. One intriguing argument is that if complex systems like consciousness can emerge from simple algorithms, then simulated consciousness might not be fundamentally different from human consciousness. After all, aren’t humans also governed by biochemical algorithms and electrical impulses?

The experiment opens up a Pandora’s Box of ethical considerations. Is it ethical to potentially create a form of simulated consciousness? To navigate these treacherous waters, consulting with experts in ethics, AI, and potentially law would likely be needed to establish guidelines and ethical stop-gaps.

Further, introducing advanced AI models like LLMs into the experimental setup complicates the ethical landscape. Is it ethical to use AI to explore or potentially generate forms of simulated consciousness? Could an AI model become a stakeholder in the ethical considerations?

Practically, running an experiment of this magnitude would require significant computational power. While cloud computing resources are an option, they come with their costs. For this experiment, I’ve estimated local computing costs using high-end GPUs and CPUs for 24 months, ranging from around $21,000 to $24,000, covering electricity, cooling, and maintenance.

Measuring ‘consciousness’

Measuring the emergence of consciousness would also require the development of rigorous quantitative metrics. These could be designed around existing theories of consciousness, like Integrated Information Theory or Global Workspace Theory. These metrics would provide a structured framework for evaluating the model’s behavior over time.

Corroborating the findings of this experiment with biological systems could offer a multidimensional perspective. Specifically, the computational model’s behaviors and patterns could be compared to simple biological organisms generally considered conscious at some level. This would validate the findings and potentially offer new insights into the nature of consciousness itself.

This experiment, though speculative, could offer groundbreaking insights into the evolution of complex traits like consciousness from simple systems. It pushes the boundaries of what we understand about life, consciousness, and the nature of existence itself. Whether we discover the emergence of fundamental consciousness or not, the journey promises to be as enlightening as any potential destination.

The post Op-ed: Exploring the boundaries of simulated consciousness with LMMs appeared first on CryptoSlate.

Read More

Continue Reading

Uncategorized

February Employment Situation

By Paul Gomme and Peter Rupert The establishment data from the BLS showed a 275,000 increase in payroll employment for February, outpacing the 230,000…

Published

on

By Paul Gomme and Peter Rupert

The establishment data from the BLS showed a 275,000 increase in payroll employment for February, outpacing the 230,000 average over the previous 12 months. The payroll data for January and December were revised down by a total of 167,000. The private sector added 223,000 new jobs, the largest gain since May of last year.

Temporary help services employment continues a steep decline after a sharp post-pandemic rise.

Average hours of work increased from 34.2 to 34.3. The increase, along with the 223,000 private employment increase led to a hefty increase in total hours of 5.6% at an annualized rate, also the largest increase since May of last year.

The establishment report, once again, beat “expectations;” the WSJ survey of economists was 198,000. Other than the downward revisions, mentioned above, another bit of negative news was a smallish increase in wage growth, from $34.52 to $34.57.

The household survey shows that the labor force increased 150,000, a drop in employment of 184,000 and an increase in the number of unemployed persons of 334,000. The labor force participation rate held steady at 62.5, the employment to population ratio decreased from 60.2 to 60.1 and the unemployment rate increased from 3.66 to 3.86. Remember that the unemployment rate is the number of unemployed relative to the labor force (the number employed plus the number unemployed). Consequently, the unemployment rate can go up if the number of unemployed rises holding fixed the labor force, or if the labor force shrinks holding the number unemployed unchanged. An increase in the unemployment rate is not necessarily a bad thing: it may reflect a strong labor market drawing “marginally attached” individuals from outside the labor force. Indeed, there was a 96,000 decline in those workers.

Earlier in the week, the BLS announced JOLTS (Job Openings and Labor Turnover Survey) data for January. There isn’t much to report here as the job openings changed little at 8.9 million, the number of hires and total separations were little changed at 5.7 million and 5.3 million, respectively.

As has been the case for the last couple of years, the number of job openings remains higher than the number of unemployed persons.

Also earlier in the week the BLS announced that productivity increased 3.2% in the 4th quarter with output rising 3.5% and hours of work rising 0.3%.

The bottom line is that the labor market continues its surprisingly (to some) strong performance, once again proving stronger than many had expected. This strength makes it difficult to justify any interest rate cuts soon, particularly given the recent inflation spike.

Read More

Continue Reading

Uncategorized

Mortgage rates fall as labor market normalizes

Jobless claims show an expanding economy. We will only be in a recession once jobless claims exceed 323,000 on a four-week moving average.

Published

on

Everyone was waiting to see if this week’s jobs report would send mortgage rates higher, which is what happened last month. Instead, the 10-year yield had a muted response after the headline number beat estimates, but we have negative job revisions from previous months. The Federal Reserve’s fear of wage growth spiraling out of control hasn’t materialized for over two years now and the unemployment rate ticked up to 3.9%. For now, we can say the labor market isn’t tight anymore, but it’s also not breaking.

The key labor data line in this expansion is the weekly jobless claims report. Jobless claims show an expanding economy that has not lost jobs yet. We will only be in a recession once jobless claims exceed 323,000 on a four-week moving average.

From the Fed: In the week ended March 2, initial claims for unemployment insurance benefits were flat, at 217,000. The four-week moving average declined slightly by 750, to 212,250


Below is an explanation of how we got here with the labor market, which all started during COVID-19.

1. I wrote the COVID-19 recovery model on April 7, 2020, and retired it on Dec. 9, 2020. By that time, the upfront recovery phase was done, and I needed to model out when we would get the jobs lost back.

2. Early in the labor market recovery, when we saw weaker job reports, I doubled and tripled down on my assertion that job openings would get to 10 million in this recovery. Job openings rose as high as to 12 million and are currently over 9 million. Even with the massive miss on a job report in May 2021, I didn’t waver.

Currently, the jobs openings, quit percentage and hires data are below pre-COVID-19 levels, which means the labor market isn’t as tight as it once was, and this is why the employment cost index has been slowing data to move along the quits percentage.  

2-US_Job_Quits_Rate-1-2

3. I wrote that we should get back all the jobs lost to COVID-19 by September of 2022. At the time this would be a speedy labor market recovery, and it happened on schedule, too

Total employment data

4. This is the key one for right now: If COVID-19 hadn’t happened, we would have between 157 million and 159 million jobs today, which would have been in line with the job growth rate in February 2020. Today, we are at 157,808,000. This is important because job growth should be cooling down now. We are more in line with where the labor market should be when averaging 140K-165K monthly. So for now, the fact that we aren’t trending between 140K-165K means we still have a bit more recovery kick left before we get down to those levels. 




From BLS: Total nonfarm payroll employment rose by 275,000 in February, and the unemployment rate increased to 3.9 percent, the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics reported today. Job gains occurred in health care, in government, in food services and drinking places, in social assistance, and in transportation and warehousing.

Here are the jobs that were created and lost in the previous month:

IMG_5092

In this jobs report, the unemployment rate for education levels looks like this:

  • Less than a high school diploma: 6.1%
  • High school graduate and no college: 4.2%
  • Some college or associate degree: 3.1%
  • Bachelor’s degree or higher: 2.2%
IMG_5093_320f22

Today’s report has continued the trend of the labor data beating my expectations, only because I am looking for the jobs data to slow down to a level of 140K-165K, which hasn’t happened yet. I wouldn’t categorize the labor market as being tight anymore because of the quits ratio and the hires data in the job openings report. This also shows itself in the employment cost index as well. These are key data lines for the Fed and the reason we are going to see three rate cuts this year.

Read More

Continue Reading

Uncategorized

Inside The Most Ridiculous Jobs Report In History: Record 1.2 Million Immigrant Jobs Added In One Month

Inside The Most Ridiculous Jobs Report In History: Record 1.2 Million Immigrant Jobs Added In One Month

Last month we though that the January…

Published

on

Inside The Most Ridiculous Jobs Report In History: Record 1.2 Million Immigrant Jobs Added In One Month

Last month we though that the January jobs report was the "most ridiculous in recent history" but, boy, were we wrong because this morning the Biden department of goalseeked propaganda (aka BLS) published the February jobs report, and holy crap was that something else. Even Goebbels would blush. 

What happened? Let's take a closer look.

On the surface, it was (almost) another blockbuster jobs report, certainly one which nobody expected, or rather just one bank out of 76 expected. Starting at the top, the BLS reported that in February the US unexpectedly added 275K jobs, with just one research analyst (from Dai-Ichi Research) expecting a higher number.

Some context: after last month's record 4-sigma beat, today's print was "only" 3 sigma higher than estimates. Needless to say, two multiple sigma beats in a row used to only happen in the USSR... and now in the US, apparently.

Before we go any further, a quick note on what last month we said was "the most ridiculous jobs report in recent history": it appears the BLS read our comments and decided to stop beclowing itself. It did that by slashing last month's ridiculous print by over a third, and revising what was originally reported as a massive 353K beat to just 229K,  a 124K revision, which was the biggest one-month negative revision in two years!

Of course, that does not mean that this month's jobs print won't be revised lower: it will be, and not just that month but every other month until the November election because that's the only tool left in the Biden admin's box: pretend the economic and jobs are strong, then revise them sharply lower the next month, something we pointed out first last summer and which has not failed to disappoint once.

To be fair, not every aspect of the jobs report was stellar (after all, the BLS had to give it some vague credibility). Take the unemployment rate, after flatlining between 3.4% and 3.8% for two years - and thus denying expectations from Sahm's Rule that a recession may have already started - in February the unemployment rate unexpectedly jumped to 3.9%, the highest since February 2022 (with Black unemployment spiking by 0.3% to 5.6%, an indicator which the Biden admin will quickly slam as widespread economic racism or something).

And then there were average hourly earnings, which after surging 0.6% MoM in January (since revised to 0.5%) and spooking markets that wage growth is so hot, the Fed will have no choice but to delay cuts, in February the number tumbled to just 0.1%, the lowest in two years...

... for one simple reason: last month's average wage surge had nothing to do with actual wages, and everything to do with the BLS estimate of hours worked (which is the denominator in the average wage calculation) which last month tumbled to just 34.1 (we were led to believe) the lowest since the covid pandemic...

... but has since been revised higher while the February print rose even more, to 34.3, hence why the latest average wage data was once again a product not of wages going up, but of how long Americans worked in any weekly period, in this case higher from 34.1 to 34.3, an increase which has a major impact on the average calculation.

While the above data points were examples of some latent weakness in the latest report, perhaps meant to give it a sheen of veracity, it was everything else in the report that was a problem starting with the BLS's latest choice of seasonal adjustments (after last month's wholesale revision), which have gone from merely laughable to full clownshow, as the following comparison between the monthly change in BLS and ADP payrolls shows. The trend is clear: the Biden admin numbers are now clearly rising even as the impartial ADP (which directly logs employment numbers at the company level and is far more accurate), shows an accelerating slowdown.

But it's more than just the Biden admin hanging its "success" on seasonal adjustments: when one digs deeper inside the jobs report, all sorts of ugly things emerge... such as the growing unprecedented divergence between the Establishment (payrolls) survey and much more accurate Household (actual employment) survey. To wit, while in January the BLS claims 275K payrolls were added, the Household survey found that the number of actually employed workers dropped for the third straight month (and 4 in the past 5), this time by 184K (from 161.152K to 160.968K).

This means that while the Payrolls series hits new all time highs every month since December 2020 (when according to the BLS the US had its last month of payrolls losses), the level of Employment has not budged in the past year. Worse, as shown in the chart below, such a gaping divergence has opened between the two series in the past 4 years, that the number of Employed workers would need to soar by 9 million (!) to catch up to what Payrolls claims is the employment situation.

There's more: shifting from a quantitative to a qualitative assessment, reveals just how ugly the composition of "new jobs" has been. Consider this: the BLS reports that in February 2024, the US had 132.9 million full-time jobs and 27.9 million part-time jobs. Well, that's great... until you look back one year and find that in February 2023 the US had 133.2 million full-time jobs, or more than it does one year later! And yes, all the job growth since then has been in part-time jobs, which have increased by 921K since February 2023 (from 27.020 million to 27.941 million).

Here is a summary of the labor composition in the past year: all the new jobs have been part-time jobs!

But wait there's even more, because now that the primary season is over and we enter the heart of election season and political talking points will be thrown around left and right, especially in the context of the immigration crisis created intentionally by the Biden administration which is hoping to import millions of new Democratic voters (maybe the US can hold the presidential election in Honduras or Guatemala, after all it is their citizens that will be illegally casting the key votes in November), what we find is that in February, the number of native-born workers tumbled again, sliding by a massive 560K to just 129.807 million. Add to this the December data, and we get a near-record 2.4 million plunge in native-born workers in just the past 3 months (only the covid crash was worse)!

The offset? A record 1.2 million foreign-born (read immigrants, both legal and illegal but mostly illegal) workers added in February!

Said otherwise, not only has all job creation in the past 6 years has been exclusively for foreign-born workers...

Source: St Louis Fed FRED Native Born and Foreign Born

... but there has been zero job-creation for native born workers since June 2018!

This is a huge issue - especially at a time of an illegal alien flood at the southwest border...

... and is about to become a huge political scandal, because once the inevitable recession finally hits, there will be millions of furious unemployed Americans demanding a more accurate explanation for what happened - i.e., the illegal immigration floodgates that were opened by the Biden admin.

Which is also why Biden's handlers will do everything in their power to insure there is no official recession before November... and why after the election is over, all economic hell will finally break loose. Until then, however, expect the jobs numbers to get even more ridiculous.

Tyler Durden Fri, 03/08/2024 - 13:30

Read More

Continue Reading

Trending