401–410 of 450 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You’re arguing against the opposite of my position. I am arguing that LLMs have a reasonable basis to be seen as conscious because there is nothing special about biological neural networks.
Ya, I seem to largely agree with your comments on this article. I was replying to brookst, did you mean to reply on a differnt thread?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The human Brain is a neural network. Your sense of “knowing what warmth is” reduces down to the weights of connections between neurons in an analog of LLMs. What is different about the human brain that warrants saying that the same emergent characteristics for one network are inaccessible to another?
You really don't think there's an experiential difference between putting your hand on a hot stove, versus reading the text "the stove is 200c, and will hurt if you touch it"?
It's easy, and very tempting to dismiss this sort of thing. But given how little we know about the human brain, let alone consciousness, I don't see how we can be confident that LLMs aren't conscious. I've had a lot of thoughts and conversations over the years that changed my mind on what consciousness likely requires. One was the realization that a purely mechanical computer can, in principle simulate the laws of ph…
I find it entirely plausible that LLMs are conscious in a real sense that affects our relationship to them. I strive to be polite and kind when interacting with them, encourage others to do the same, and think poorly of those who won't. I still think it's obvious that LLMs are not conscious in the mode Dawkins believes them to be. Through a series of instructions and leading questions, he's told Claude to play the pa…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Thought I made it clear. What I am saying is the possibility that consciousness is fundamental and all reality arises from it. Look up Mathematical Universe Hypothesis... Wrote a bit more about this here https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48000035
I soo want to throw my philosopher's persona on you, but I won't. It seems wrong for some reason. I will simply say that the linked post is sloppy reasoning at best. I guess what I am really saying: Can you either get me something that is yours to claim as your own OR clearer representation? I am not spending my leisure time searching online for a tenuous argument. Now.. arguing with a rando online. Count me in.
Ok here is a thought experiment. Imagine that was assume that physical laws have resulted in our evolution, I mean, the evolution of consciousness. As another comment said, imagine we simulate these physical laws (exhaustively) in a computer.
If our assumption is true that the physical laws have lead to consciousness, we will ultimately see conscious beings emerge in this simulated world. There is no reason to think that these conscious beings will not have subjective experiences just like us. I think we can consider it as a proof that consciousness is "computable".
Now let us imagine what happens if we stop simulating the whole universe, and only simulate a single conscious brain. Do the respective consciousness still have the experience of a full universe?
This depend on how the simulation works. If the simulation reads back from the world that it renders, to create sensations for the consciousness in question, then it will just be devoid of all sensations. But why should the simulation read back what it renders? It has all the information to render the sensations of the consciousness for the whole universe. In this case, the consciousness will still sense the whole universe.
This seems to indicate that if consciousness is computable aka if it is definable then the subjective experiences inside it can exist without the anything actually computing it. It is like a circle existing even if it is not drawn anywhere. Computable consciousnesses appear to be self contained and self sustaining. In Hindu mythology there is a concept of a god being "swayambhoo", in other words being created on its own. I think this converges to that idea.
I also think this is how multiple universes and how infinite time and space can exist. Multiple universes exist because universes can differ in random events without causing the conditions for existence of consciousness to disappear. So each such varient w.r.t random a single random event is a different universe.
On top of all that this makes questions like "Who created the universe" and "why do we exist" pointless. Because as per this idea, existence and subjective experience is implicit.
This, for me is the greatest merit of this idea.
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.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Feed all this into your LLM. I’m not here to type just for your benefit. And going back to my first point, you seem to believe you’re at some kind of innovative cutting edge when your comments about the lack of proof in human subjectivity show you’re quite a long way from contemporary currents within epistemology which is why I had such lols from it - you accused Wittgenstein of being outdated while expressing a beli…
> Feed all this into your LLM. I’m not here to type just for your benefit. Then you can just not talk and walk away. I type for your benefit you don’t type for mine this debate is one sided. No point for anyone to discuss anything with you. > The rest of what you’ve exasperated about is fairly scattergun so would take too much typing to engage with. Is it? Well most of your argument was stupid. But I still took the t…
Coming back in twenty years was the answer, which you can’t really understand as an answer right now.
Swearing and personal attacks are in breach of forum rules.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The rhetorical claim "there are only two sexes" is only ever used to claim that there are two genders. And that is precisely what Dawkins has done. You are wrong about intersex people being genetically classifiable. There is no deterministic causal relationship between genetics and sex characteristics: as an example, a person with XX chromosomes may develop external male genitalia and v.v. for XY chromosomes. But of…
Your first para seems utterly bizarre, to the point of nonsensicality. Maybe it would help if you could say what you think "gender" refers to, but at this point I doubt it. Your second para's argument would only be valid if you thought that sex is defined by external characteristics. I'm pretty sure you don't think that. And as far as I'm aware, while some DSDs certainly have a gene-expression component, there's no r…
"There's no reason to think they don't all ultimately have a genetic basis". Oh, so you have groundbreaking research results you want to share? Something that would explain luteoma as having a "genetic basis"?
And yes, external sex characteristics is how sex is determined by doctors at birth. And throughout life. If you live as female/male/ambiguous intersex, but have some other set of chromosomes, that does not change your sex.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Feed all this into your LLM. I’m not here to type just for your benefit. Then you can just not talk and walk away. I type for your benefit you don’t type for mine this debate is one sided. No point for anyone to discuss anything with you. > The rest of what you’ve exasperated about is fairly scattergun so would take too much typing to engage with. Is it? Well most of your argument was stupid. But I still took the t…
See the comment below for the answers you seek. Coming back in twenty years was the answer, which you can’t really understand as an answer right now. Swearing and personal attacks are in breach of forum rules.
>Swearing and personal attacks are in breach of forum rules.
Look at your own trans and racist jokes in your own posts. Jesus, you talk about breaching forum rules when your disgusting statements are a breach to society as we know it.
>See the comment below for the answers you seek.
That comment is wrong, and I replied to it. Why don't you reply with your own reasoning and opinions rather then hiding behind other people. That guy knows how to discuss and reason... you... you don't know shit.
There are a lot of people vulnerable to AI psychosis. As far as the ostensibly controversial topic of AI being conscious, it can be dismissed out of hand. There is no reason that it should be conscious, it was not designed to be, nor does it need to be in order to explain how it functions with respect to its design. It's also unclear how consciousness would even apply to something like an LLM which is a process, not…
If AI as presently designed and operated is conscious, this ends up being an argument for panpsychism. As you say it’s static, fixed, deterministic, and so on, and if you know how it works it’s more like a lossy compression model of knowledge than a mind. Ultimately it’s a lot of math. So if it’s conscious, a rock is conscious. A rock can process information in the form of energy flowing through it. It’s a fixed mode…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
We are not fundamentally different. Chemical reactions are just math.
> Chemical reactions are just math. No, it is quantum mechanics. Physical world is not reducible to math, it has been long proven since early 20th century.