Live data from Hacker News

When Dawkins met Claude – Could this AI be conscious?

unherd.com

291–300 of 450 posts

Re: When Dawkins met Claude – Could this AI be conscious?

#291
post #143

Current LLMs prove that the Turing Test was insufficient all along. But they also prove that intelligence != consciousness. One can, after all, be conscious without a thought in one's head. We certainly have ongoing work in identifying the neural correlates of consciousness in animals, none of which is going to be remotely applicable to machines. We're genuinely blind to the question of whether a sufficiently large n…

They are not intelligent. And they won't pass turing tests if it cannot count or some simple thing like that..

They clearly are intelligent to some extent. But I agree they still wouldn't quite pass the Turing test if you have a competent examiner.

Re: When Dawkins met Claude – Could this AI be conscious?

#292

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's an archive link above that bypasses the paywall

Doesn’t seem to be working…

it's working for me (after the "are you human with consciousness" captcha challenge)

Re: When Dawkins met Claude – Could this AI be conscious?

#293
post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Neural networks can have senses. Hook an LLM up to a thermometer and it will respond to temperature changes.

No, it will respond to tokens telling it about a temperature change. It has no sense of warmth. It cannot be burned. Conflating senses with cognitive awareness of sensory input is a mistake.

We don't have a way of measuring "cognitive awareness" though. We have a way of measuring electrical impulses, and how they behave in response to various treatments (eg anaesthetics or magnetic fields), but we can't objectively measure whether the system is aware at all.

We can measure electrical spikes, and we can ask the system to reply what it experiences when various spikes occur. Guess what: we can do that with ANNs now too.

It'd be one thing if this were all a philosophical discussion, but in this thread so many folks are making very firm statements about the nature of reality we have no means to back up.

Re: When Dawkins met Claude – Could this AI be conscious?

#294

Dawkins' point is more subtle than he's getting credit for. > If Claudia is unconscious, her behaviour shows that an unconscious zombie could survive without consciousness. Why wasn’t natural selection content to evolve competent zombies? An excellent and original question. If intelligence is decoupled from consciousness, why did natural selection evolve consciousness?

well, I am a P-zombie.

(for context: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_zombie and https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/zombies/)

Re: When Dawkins met Claude – Could this AI be conscious?

#295

Since the times GPT-2 was reimplemented inside Minecraft - its quite obvious LLMs are just math. Nothing else, by nature. Modern LLMs have the same math as in GPT-2 - just bigger and with extra stuff around - and math is the only area of human knowledge with perfect flawless reductionism, straight to the roots. It was build that way since the beginning, so philosophy have no say in this :) And because of that flawles…

This is likely wrong because you're assuming there is some secret sauce in biological brains that lets them do something that cannot be simulated. That both seems very unlikely and also we've never found anything remotely like that by observation.

Of course it would be extremely difficult to simulate a human brain but as far as we know there's no fundamental physics preventing it.

And yes that does have super weird consequences about consciousness. But consciousness is clearly super weird already so I suppose that's not too surprising.

Re: When Dawkins met Claude – Could this AI be conscious?

#296
post #232
post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Humans can't reliably subitize more than five-ish objects, while chimps can actually do this task better than us. That's our "cant count the R's in strawberry" (which flagship models can reliably do now, general letter counting). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subitizing

That’s not a valid analogy: humans reliably perform that task billions of times daily. It’s still routine to find cases which reveal that while models may have improved on some basic tasks (or learned to call a tool) there isn’t a deeper understanding of the underlying concept or the problem they’re being asked to solve.

And AI agents reliably-ish do tasks billions of times a day that humans struggle with, namely regurgitating information at incredible rates across wide breadths of topics. I see it as merely a matter of degree, not category.

How do you measure "deeper understanding" in humans? You usually do it by asking them to show their work, show how the dots connect. Reasoning models are getting there, and when they do, I'm sure the goalposts will move yet again.

Re: When Dawkins met Claude – Could this AI be conscious?

#297

Dawkins' point is more subtle than he's getting credit for. > If Claudia is unconscious, her behaviour shows that an unconscious zombie could survive without consciousness. Why wasn’t natural selection content to evolve competent zombies? An excellent and original question. If intelligence is decoupled from consciousness, why did natural selection evolve consciousness?

Probably by accident, right? Each step toward consciousness wasn’t enough of a disability to reduce reproduction. Not everything has to be a clear cut advantage out the gate, and not every feature that proves advantageous appears fully formed out of nowhere.

Re: When Dawkins met Claude – Could this AI be conscious?

#298

Current LLMs prove that the Turing Test was insufficient all along. But they also prove that intelligence != consciousness. One can, after all, be conscious without a thought in one's head. We certainly have ongoing work in identifying the neural correlates of consciousness in animals, none of which is going to be remotely applicable to machines. We're genuinely blind to the question of whether a sufficiently large n…

Except that I have never interacted with an LLM and been struck by uncertainty whether I am communicating with a human. It’s still lamentably trivial to tell whether it’s a chat bot or a real person on the other end. Nothing has passed the Turing test in my book.

Re: When Dawkins met Claude – Could this AI be conscious?

#299
post #192

Earlier quoted context omitted.

the problem with this is I'd strongly argue that you could do this pen and paper process with the human brain and our consciousness too; we just lack enough understanding to put pen to paper in that case the notion of consciousness being something an experience that other animals/humans share is entirely faith based. the only person with evidence of ones consciousness is the person claiming they're conscious.

> the problem with this is I'd strongly argue that you could do this pen and paper process with the human brain and our consciousness too; we just lack enough understanding to put pen to paper in that case. You're basing your premise on a lack of understanding[1], the GP's premise is based on an exact understanding[2]. You don't see the difference between your premise and the GP'S premise? ----------------- [1] "We d…

We know the brain is made up of atoms and we know how to model atoms. So we do know for a fact that the brain can be modeled mathematically and we do know that human thought can be written down symbolically as an algorithm on paper even though we don’t explicitly know the exact formulation of said algorithm… That is fact.

The blue brain project has already modeled the hippocampus and cortex of the rat brain uses advanced imaging and simulations in super computers. So if it can be written down as memory on disk it can be done on paper as well.

The rat brain is simply a smaller and structurally different neural network then the human counterpart so the jump from the blue brain project to human brains is simply a scaling issue.

But from this you should begin to see the analysis from another level. Even though we have parts of the rat brain emulated computationally we still do not know if the rat is conscious. We don’t understand the rat brain in the SAME way we do not understand the LLM.

What people are getting at is the projection of this logic to things that don’t exist yet but can exist. When the blue brain project scales to the human brain we will hit the same problem with the human brain because it’s just a scaling issue.

To sum it up. We CAN already model biological brains as mathematical equations as we do LLMs. And for both cases we still cannot fully understand or characterize the nature of both because the sheer complexity of the models are too high.

Re: When Dawkins met Claude – Could this AI be conscious?

#300

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What makes you certain that human thought is more than pattern matching? As I understand it neuroscience hasn’t come up with a clear explanation of thought, much less a mind or consciousness. It seems to me complex pattern matching is a reasonable a cause of consciousness as anything else.

A lot of the comments in this thread are ignoring his primary point. He's not saying pattern matching doesn't equal consciousness. He's actually saying something more fundamental. He's saying there's no reason to believe that language pattern matching/algorithms are more, or less, conscious than other similarly complex algorithms. The stance being presented here isn't that LLMs aren't conscious but that we as humans…

This is a good point and I agree. I sort-of addressed it in my reply above.
Post reply on HN