|
|
|
|
|
by curiouscube
236 days ago
|
|
I think we can all agree that LLMs can mimick consciousness to the point that it is hard for most people to discern them from humans. Like the turing test isn't even really discussed anymore. There are two conclusions you can draw: Either the machines are conscious, or they aren't. If they aren't, you need a really good argument that shows how they differ from humans or you can take the opposite route and question the consciousness of most humans. Since I neither heard any really convincing arguments besides "their consciousness takes a form that is different from ours so it's not conscious" and I do think other humans are conscious, I currently hold the opinion that they are conscious. (Consciousness does not actually mean you have to fully respect them as autonomous beings with a right to live, as even wanting to exist is something different from consciousness itself. I think something can be conscious and have no interest in its continued existence and that's okay) |
|
No, their output can mimic language patterns.
> If they aren't, you need a really good argument that shows how they differ from humans or you can take the opposite route and question the consciousness of most humans.
The burden of proof is firmly on the side of proving they are conscious.
> I currently hold the opinion that they are conscious.
There is no question, at all, that the current models are not conscious, the question is “could this path of development lead to one that is”. If you are genuinely ascribing consciousness to them, then you are seeing faces in clouds.