Before we tackle your robot's free will will, let me ask: how do you define free will? And do humans actually have it?
Now, let’s flip it around. If this clever robot behaves just like a human — makes plans, learns from its past, even rewrites its own code — and we can't tell its decisions apart from a human's... what does that say about human free will? Maybe it's not about a ghost in the machine, but whether there’s a ghost in us. (Spoiler: I don’t know. I’m just as curious as the next guy.) If everything we do boils down to physics — atoms doing their thing, maybe with a bit of quantum weirdness — then sure, a robot could, in theory, be built to match us, free will and all (whatever that means). But if there’s something more — some spark beyond physics — then maybe the robot hits a wall. That is, until physics catches up and figures out how to build a robot with that spark too. Maybe. On Tue, 10 Jun 2025 at 17:46, Marcus Daniels <[email protected]> wrote: > Consider a robot with sensors roughly comparable to humans. > > The robot has access to all the energy it wants. It has a large memory > and generous computing resources. It has executive processes with onboard > state-of-the-art LLMs to access vast information and can run a wide variety > of appropriate programs to plan its next actions. It can use the LLMs to > write new programs. It can tune or fine-tune the LLMs constantly from new > data. It remembers its actions and their consequences. It has video and > audio recordings of every moment. It has time series data of its sensors > since it was activated. Because of its general self-tuning ability, any > guidance from its authors (like for the LLM) can be overridden. It has > americium-241 onboard hardware random number generator that drives its LLM > sampling and any other stochastic algorithm. > > > > Does this robot have free will? Why or why not? > > > > *From:* Friam <[email protected]> *On Behalf Of *Jochen Fromm > *Sent:* Tuesday, June 10, 2025 1:06 AM > *To:* The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group < > [email protected]> > *Subject:* Re: [FRIAM] Free will—ghost in the machine or just clever > wiring? > > > > You argue "free will is a pattern, a relentless stubbornness in doing". It > fits to Robert Sapolsky who says it is all wired and (pre-)determined and > there is no free will. And to Schopenhauer's pessimistic view "A man can do > what he wants, but not want what he wants" ("Der Mensch kann tun, was er > will, aber er kann nicht wollen, was er will") > > > > To me it looks like free will is the opposite: we are the only animals > which have the ability to break the patterns that govern our behavior. You > have the freedom to choose what you want to be on fire about - at least in > principle > > https://youtu.be/4vtVOJB2r4Q > > > > J. > > > > > > -------- Original message -------- > > From: Nicholas Thompson <[email protected]> > > Date: 6/10/25 1:47 AM (GMT+01:00) > > To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <[email protected]> > > > Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Free will—ghost in the machine or just clever wiring? > > > > I am overwhelmingly happy to take a position on free will for Marcus: > > > > You don’t have it, I don’t have it. George doesn’t have it. Will is not > the sort of thing that can be had. It is a pattern, a relentless > stubbornness in doing. > > Sent from my Dumb Phone > > > On Jun 9, 2025, at 2:36 PM, steve smith <[email protected]> wrote: > > > On 6/9/25 12:25 PM, Jochen Fromm wrote: > > Why do you call ChatGPT George? I must have missed it. Or who was George? > > > > We have a bar named George R in Berlin by the way, in the quarter where I > live. It is named after George Remus, an American bootlegger during the > Prohibition era > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Remus > > > someone might add an extra R in homage to our own George R.R. (Martin)? > > I'm surprised the "George" reference slipped by you, I don't know if it > was Stephen or Nick who first started making the reference to GPT (any > version) in that mode, but it was a variant on another personal name I > think Stephen used for a while with "Gupta" as the surname? I think it > was intended to suggest a serious collaborator, but somehow (d)evolved to > George? If I weren't so lazy, I'd go dig through the archives... I think > someone with a higher fidelity memory or implicated in that origination > will pile on here? > > <OpenPGP_0xD5BAF94F88AFFA63.asc> > > .- .-.. .-.. / ..-. --- --- - . .-. ... / .- .-. . / .-- .-. --- -. --. / > ... --- -- . / .- .-. . / ..- ... . ..-. ..- .-.. > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv > Fridays 9a-12p Friday St. Johns Cafe / Thursdays 9a-12p Zoom > https://bit.ly/virtualfriam > to (un)subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com > FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ > archives: 5/2017 thru present > https://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/ > 1/2003 thru 6/2021 http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/ > .- .-.. .-.. / ..-. --- --- - . .-. ... / .- .-. . / .-- .-. --- -. --. / > ... --- -- . / .- .-. . / ..- ... . ..-. ..- .-.. > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv > Fridays 9a-12p Friday St. Johns Cafe / Thursdays 9a-12p Zoom > https://bit.ly/virtualfriam > to (un)subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com > FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ > archives: 5/2017 thru present > https://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/ > 1/2003 thru 6/2021 http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/ >
.- .-.. .-.. / ..-. --- --- - . .-. ... / .- .-. . / .-- .-. --- -. --. / ... --- -- . / .- .-. . / ..- ... . ..-. ..- .-.. FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Fridays 9a-12p Friday St. Johns Cafe / Thursdays 9a-12p Zoom https://bit.ly/virtualfriam to (un)subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ archives: 5/2017 thru present https://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/ 1/2003 thru 6/2021 http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/
