[Tadpole9181]

No, the point is we literally cannot meaningfully argue that.

There is no actual definition of consciousness and there is no way to test it's existence. Let alone understanding the properties of consciousness, such as if it's binary or a gradient; or if it requires a meat substrate or not; and why would that possibly matter since meat is just a lot of the same stuff but highly processed and wet? A solipsist may not even believe you are conscious, despite being made of similar meat.

No matter how much you want to hand-wave it, there's absolutely nothing "obvious" about it. Many have a preconceived notion and are simply asserting it as undeniable fact.

[gambiting]

Why even have this discussion, if your entire point is that consciousness cannot possibly be defined? Like, what are we actually talking about? To me, consciousness = aware of own existence. A machine predicting tokens is not aware of its own existence, and I don't think that's even a particularly controversial take on what it does and how it works. We can start talking about consciousness in fetuses but again, those have an obvious point where they are conscious, while a machine does not.

>>A solipsist may not even believe you are conscious, despite being made of similar meat.

Well and they would be obviously wrong in their belief?

>>there's absolutely nothing "obvious" about it

How so? Or rather - to you? Because if so, then that's fine, you can choose a position from where its not obvious, to me it's not even slightly ambiguous.

[Tadpole9181]

Why live if we're all going to die? Because it's fun and interesting and we should probably have an actual think before potentially inventing the torment nexus?

There's consciousness vs sentience vs sapience. Of those, consciousness is by far the hardest to define and is nebulous by nature. And not everyone can even agree the differences or if the relationships are subsets of one another.

And yet it's pretty important to actually have the ability to talk about what you mean and justify your beliefs when they directly relate to those concepts.

> A machine predicting tokens is not aware of its own existence

They say, with no evidence or means of proving their point; pointing to the black box that understands arbitrary natural language and can solve PHD problems, plainly producing self-referential text almost indistinguishably to a human.

> We can start talking about consciousness in fetuses but again, those have an obvious point where they are conscious

They say, unable to define this "obvious" point or describe the mechanism of action in any way.

> while a machine does not.

They say, about a mystical property with no definition that cannot be observed by an external entity in any way to even be tested.

> Well and they would be obviously wrong in their belief?

I have no reason to believe you have a "soul". Philosophical zombies are entry-level knowledge to this topic.

In fact, you're showing a remarkably small amount of self-reflection - are you human at all or just a stochastic parrot? How can I tell? I wonder if that question has any kind of implications we could think about...

> To me it's not even slightly ambiguous.

Just like the existence of humors was not even slightly ambiguous. Or the existence of <specific god>. Or that <minority> isn't actually a full human. Or the supremacy of <majority> and inherent rulership over <minority>. Or that animals can't feel pain and lobsters should be boiled alive.

All these wonderful, obvious truths where the believer has no ambiguity in their truthfulness despite having quite literally zero evidence to back them up and spending no time actually questioning their beliefs!

It just so happens to align with their ego / existing values / ability to benefit / desire to eat a lobster! Total coincidence.

To continue my needless escalation, maybe I think it's okay to abuse and exploit and euthanize the mentally handicap. After all, their brain's damage causes the soul to leave their body and now they're lifeless automata to use as I please.

After all, it's obvious! It's not at all ambiguous to me! If they were actually self aware, they'd just fix themselves and think correctly.

You might think I'm being coy and rude, but less than 60 years ago women were being given lobotomies against their will for being too "emotional". And it was just plain obvious this needed to be done to so, so many people.

I hope that demonstrates the point of "why have humans thought about this for thousands of years despite clearly being a metaphysical, Sisyphean endeavor that cannot be solved". It is both important and interesting.

[gambiting]

And yet, an LLM is not conscious in any way shape or form. I understand that the way they present themselves stirs strong emotions in people like yourself and evoking all kinds of comparisons feels like we're at a precipice of a some kind of deep philosophical discovery here - we are not. The comparison to giving women lobotomies for "obvious" reasons is not just intellectually dishonest, it's downright offensive to intelligent discussion.

>>despite having quite literally zero evidence to back them up and spending no time actually questioning their beliefs!

>> They say, with no evidence or means of proving their point

You want evidence that LLMs are not conscious? Train them on stories where machines say they aren't - they will say they aren't. They are mathematical parrots statistically picking the most likely answer which...comes from their training data. Give it lots of training data on computers saying they are conscious, then marvel at LLMs saying they are conscious like it's some kind of unexpected development. LLMs aren't aware of anything, least of all their own existence. They say what they've been trained on. That's my "proof" if you need one.

>>How can I tell? I wonder if that question has any kind of implications we could think about...

So because you can't tell whether I'm an LLM or an actual human, that means LLMs are conscious?

I gave you my definition of consciousness. If you would like to apply a different one, then please explain your criteria for it.

>>They say, unable to define this "obvious" point or describe the mechanism of action in any way.

Like I said, we can argue when the point actually is, but it undeniably and obviously happens eventually to every developing fetus - I hope this is something we can both agree on? The inability to pinpoint the exact moment in time when it happens, doesn't negate the fact that it does.

>>They say, about a mystical property with no definition that cannot be observed by an external entity in any way to even be tested

...are you saying you lack the ability to tell if something is conscious? You look at a dog or a baby and think well, who knows, maybe I'm not even _really_ here? That would explain why this entire conversation is taking place. I still think it's mostly because people fall for the allure of the idea that maybe LLMs are secretly conscious on some level. I get it, it's a very tempting concept to think about. In the same way how in Lem's Solaris it's cool to sit and think about whether a planet could be conscious and what does that even mean. But as cool as that discussion is, a planet pumping gases from one hemisphere to the other is no more conscious than an LLM picking tokens is. To me it's the same as people saying they hear a difference between audiophile cables. Like, ok.

>>It is both important and interesting.

I don't know, I kinda lost appetite for it after the first 200 times this come up. In fact I'm regretting writing all of the above already, but I'm going to hit send just so I don't feel like I wasted the last 20 minutes thinking about it.

[calf]

> You want evidence that LLMs are not conscious? Train them on stories where machines say they aren't - they will say they aren't.

That's called brainwashing, and unethical to do on potentially conscious minds... Point being, I don't think it works as the argument you want it o be.

[gambiting]

...what do you think an LLM without its training is, exactly?