[mckirk]

I am saying that GP's claim of "just because it only uses some basic math, it cannot be sentient/conscious/intelligent" does not seem valid to me. The only way such a claim could be made, as far as I can see, would be to point to a specific mechanism that is needed for sentience/consciousness/intelligence to arise, which goes beyond the mechanisms a neural network uses.

I.e., they could only make that claim if they knew that their own brain (which is presumably the only verifiable instance of consciousness they know of) did something that couldn't be done with "matrix multiplications".

[YeGoblynQueenne]

Searching this thread for the string "just because it only uses some basic math, it cannot be sentient/conscious/intelligent" I can only find it in your comment. That's your interpretation of what the OP said, not what they said, is that correct?

I think you should not try to interpret in that way and only stick to what the other person has said, otherwise we will all lose the thread of the conversation.

In any case, nobody here has said anything about brains having, or not having, to do something with matrix multiplication, except for your comment, so I still don't understand what you are saying.

Are you saying that the OP's brain is doing "something that couldn't be done with "matrix multiplications", or are you saying it isn't doing something like that?

[d110af5ccf]

> Are you saying that the OP's brain is doing "something that couldn't be done with "matrix multiplications", or are you saying it isn't doing something like that?

He is saying neither. He is observing that OP has introduced the assumption that their brain is doing something that can't be done with matrix multiplication and is pointing out that there is no evidence to back such an assumption up.

> but now somehow the collective has moved on to believing that matrix multiplication is sentient

The OP clearly feels that matrix multiplication is insufficient for sentience. Presumably the OP views themselves and other humans as sentient. Therefore the OP is implying that human brains do things which cannot be reduced to or wholly represented by matrix multiplication (plus the various nonlinear activation functions and other implementation details of current ML models).

That seems like a highly suspect assumption.

[YeGoblynQueenne]

>> He is saying neither. He is observing that OP has introduced the assumption that their brain is doing something that can't be done with matrix multiplication and is pointing out that there is no evidence to back such an assumption up.

Where was this assumption, about the brain and matrix multiplication, introduced? As far as I can tell, "the brain" was introduced to the conversation by mckirk, not the OP.

>> That seems like a highly suspect assumption.

Which one? Can you please quote from the OP's comment? You and the other poster are constantly bringing up things that someone is supposed to have said, but that nobody has said yet, in this thread, and it is very confusing.