[Symmetry]

Scientific study of consciousness comes from ignoring our subjective impressions of our own consciousnesses, which might be illusory, and going only by what can be seen by other people. So you have experiments doing things like showing subjects subliminal images trying to probe the boundaries between conscious experience and unconscious experience. You start with results like "If we show this image to subjects for 50 ms it only has a slight effect on their behavior which fades out after a second, but if we show it to them for 60 ms it has a large effect for the rest of the experiment including being able to talk about it" and then you keep going from there.

[dinvlad]

This is kind of a stretch of an argument though. We could say the same about physics and any other sciences - everything is an abstraction at some level, but if this abstraction is reproduced by multiple independent types of measurement and is falsifiable, that is what we call scientific. I don't think LLMs pass this test.

[Symmetry]

I certainly wouldn't say that a traditional LLM is conscious. Once an input falls off of a LLM's input buffer it ceases to have any effect on its output, the exact same way that a subliminal stimuli's effects are limited in a human brain. The size, in bytes, of a LLM's input buffer isn't all that far off from a human brain's input activations either. So strictly feed-forward neural networks aren't conscious in this sense but its easy to image that architectural changes might provide an analogue to what a humans' consciousness provides.