Earlier quoted context omitted.
What would have to change about future systems to make you think they're conscious in a way that modern systems aren't? That is to say, what evidence would you need from a system in order to think that it's conscious?
One big reason I don't think LLMs are (currently) conscious is because they are static. They do not change in response to input. I think they need some kind of temporal awareness (not just a 5-minute cron job), and some mechanism for self-modification or active learning based on their input. If an experience flows through them and leaves them completely unchanged, are they actually conscious of the experience? But, i…
It is true that the LLM itself is static. However it's context window is self-modifiable, based on its inputs and outputs.
> I think they need some kind of temporal awareness... and some mechanism for self-modification or active learning based on their input.
Why?! (besides, they do, see above)
I bring this example up, and it's clear evidence in humans that neither of these things are required for consciousness, and one that I deal with in my home. People with dementia that have no memory that are no longer able to learn suffer a different issue that not being conscious.
> If an experience flows through them and leaves them completely unchanged, are they actually conscious of the experience?
This line of thinking precludes dementia patients with no retention of memory are not conscious.
I agree having an experience, and being conscious of that experience are two different things, though.