[dTal]

ChatGPT's opinion on the matter is completely worthless, unless it was also trained on an accurate description of its training process (it wasn't). Language models do not even have access to their own "thought process" - if you ask it "why" it said something, you will get a post-hoc rationalization 100 percent of the time because the next-word prediction only has access to the same text that you see. The rationalization might be incidentally correct, or it might not - either way it contributes no real information about the model's internal state.

[jiggawatts]

There's an interesting theory that this is all that consciousness is: one part of the brain trying to explain the decisions of another part, a part into which it has no special insight.

[krapp]

That interesting theory is called the bicameral mind, and as far as I know it's widely considered pseudoscience and not taken seriously in any scientific field.

Also, it doesn't describe at all the way LLMs work, so it isn't even applicable.

[unparagoned]

So just like humans

[krapp]

No, not like humans. Humans have access to their own thought processes, and are capable of introspection.