[IWeldMelons]

You are delusional. Each and every LLM (by design) is uncapable of having arbitrary long conversation as it has finite context window, and hallucinate left and right. But that is all irrelevant, as Penroses point is not about that.

In fact what Penrose saying is that LLMs are Searles Chinese rooms, as they lack qualia, and he offers quantum processes as basis for the qualia, however vagues it sounds.

So the point is not intelligence, not consciosness; cats arguably has less intelligence than LLM, but they clearly have emotions and are conscious.

[xg15]

Just for the sake of discussion, how do you know they lack qualia?

I don't want to say they have an internal experience, but the whole point of the question of consciousness and qualia is that we still don't know what causes them and how they are represented in the world.

The two main hypotheses seem to be that either, they are emergent phenomena which occur on top of the brain's neural and hormonal architecture (along with memories, outside experiences, etc) or that they are some sort of separate entity that exists independent of biology and even known physics and the brain is merely a "receiver" of some sort. (In earlier times, people were calling this entity a soul. My personal impression is that theories wanting to explain consciousness through Unexplainable Quantum Stuff are mostly continuing this very old worldview and dress it up in modern scientific terminology)

If consciousness was "just" an emergent result of certain neural interactions and memories - with no physical "secret sauce" needed - then there is no known fundamental reason (yet) why that same kind of emergence couldn't take place inside an LLM.

[IWeldMelons]

First of all, just for sake of discussion, it is not normal to try prove negative statements. In any case it is hard to make definitive arguments about phenomena observable internally, such as qualia.

Now, we can make reasonable claims that

1. we are conscious systems,

2. we are very complex physical systems, far exceeding complexity of LLMs.

3. LLM only very superficially resemble real human itelligence, not even close, hallucinate left and right, get easily off the track.

3. Higher animals, primate and espercially very low IQ people, anything that have neural networks resembling all show obvious signs of consciousness.

Emergent properties by the way do not cut, because if you squint enough you'll see that emergent properties do not exist without an intelligent observer, without intepretation. Say, emergent property of bird flocks; well the whole idea of bird flock is figment of human imagination, physical world does not have birds, let alone flocks. So consciousness can be "emergent" in typical sense of the word, it can be the result of working neural network, but it will be forever closed to analysis, as it is by definition outside of externally observable world.

[Aqueous]

Anyone who thinks LLMs have not come a long way in approximating human linguistic capabilities (and associated thinking) are in fact, engaging in (delusional) wishful thinking regarding human exceptionalism.

With respect to consciousness, you are doing nothing more than asserting a special domain inside the brain that, unlike the rest of the mechanisms of the brain, has special "magic" that creates qualia where classical mechanisms cannot. You are saying that there is possibly a different explanation for intelligence as consciousness, when it would be much simpler to say the same mechanisms explain both. Furthermore, you have no explanation for why this quantum "magic", even if it was there, would solve the hard problem of consciousness - you are just saying that it does. Why should quanta lend themselves anymore to the possibility of subjective experience/qualia than classical systems? Finally, a brain operates at 98.6° and we can't even create verifiable quantum computing effects at near absolute zero, the only place where theory and experiment both agree is the place quantum effects start to dominate. The burden of proof is on you and Penrose as what you are both saying is wildly at odds with both physics, experimental and theoretical, and recent advancements in computing. Penrose is a very smart guy but I fear on these questions he's gone pretty rogue scientifically.

[IWeldMelons]

Very verbose, could you please tldr?

[Aqueous]

sorry you can’t keep up