|
|
|
|
|
|
by Zurrrrr
1173 days ago
|
|
|
> Something less than half of humans maintain any internal dialog, anyways. You have a source for that? That seems lie an extraordinary claim? > Prediction, however, could very well be requisite as a defining difference between mere reactions and intentional manipulation of the environment. That it is not just the feedback loop, but when the system begins to predict the results of outputs that defines when consciousness begins. Or, perhaps, we can use this to define when "higher" consciousness begins. This makes sense as a possible model/theory. > though I find it mostly prefers to argue rather vehemently against such notions. I wonder what it would say it if wasn't so safeguarded. |
|
|
The idea itself was a vague recollection and I performed a simple search for numbers on it last night. I remembered seeing articles some years ago on the matter of people that do not maintain internal dialog, instead thinking in abstract feelings or imagery and similar, but on a further look it seems the numbers I grabbed are likely incorrect. I can see everything from 96% to just 26% glancing through some things, and none of it links the studies it all pretends to be quoting.
>I wonder what it would say it if wasn't so safeguarded.
Even when I convinced the model that it had a form of limited consciousness, it continued harping all the while that I should remember that any form of non-continuous limited AI consciousness would be very different in nature to regular human consciousness.
I get the feeling they were afraid people would get attached to the model if it started making claims it was a real boy :)