[Natsu]

> Yeah but your only argument for that is to redefine learning to pretend it's the same thing that humans are doing when that's clearly not the case.

What test can I do to differentiate them, then?

At first, you said they couldn't write an essay... but AIs can absolutely do that. The internal experience of even other people is unknowable and something we guess by analogy, so if you want me to agree you need some other actual test on measurable outputs to differentiate.

Otherwise this is all about qualia and there's no way to come to rational agreement.

[freejazz]

You are being obtusely literal, as I did not ask you if they could write an essay. I asked you if they could express their feelings. There's no point in us conversing if you are going to respond this way, as it's disingenuous. I'd think you are capable of understanding the difference between the two. And I don't care if you agree with me or not, it's your burden to elevate AI to humanity, not mine, and you haven't done it here. Your perspective here seems to come from a life devoid of art and experience in things. For that, I'm sorry for you.

[Natsu]

> I asked you if they could express their feelings.

And I asked how we can test whether someone has actual feelings or any other kind of conscious internal experience. If it's "obvious" then why is there no consensus on the whole https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_zombie thing?

> There's no point in us conversing

I gave this conversation to an LLM to respond to.

[freejazz]

I only said it was obvious that LLM's don't know anything about art past what you described, which you didn't dispute and was an obvious logicaly conclusion from your own explanation of what AI "learned".

>I gave this conversation to an LLM to respond to.

I'm not surprised, I repeatedly characterized your responses as obtuse, disingenuous, or ignorant. I'm not sure what you think you proved.