[haswell]

If there's any reason to take seriously the idea that AI is conscious, we must then take seriously the idea that many other non-living things are conscious.

Unless the argument is that consciousness is an emergent property of complexity or information density, why would AI be any more or less conscious than my toaster?

It seems to me that it's far more likely that everything is conscious than it is that AI is somehow uniquely more conscious than other things.

[krzat]

What makes us conscious anyway? As I write this sentence, my brain generates words and contracts specific muscles in my hands to type, but I don't really understand how. I'm just aware that it happens. Apparently I'm no aware of every single neuronal activity, so what I am aware of?

[nomel]

Or, maybe consciousness is a spectrum, rather than a binary.

[haswell]

Could be! I think the broader thought experiment is about examining why we think LLMs specifically might be conscious vs other complex systems, even if it is a spectrum.

For example, there’s a case to be made that the ecosystem we collectively exist in is far more complex than the largest LLM, but it’s currently less popular to debate “is the earth conscious?” or “is the universe conscious”, presumable because we can’t speak to those systems in human language.

I’m trying to tease out what I think is the likelihood that we tend to ascribe consciousness to AI for the same reasons we see faces in clouds. We’re biologically conditioned to recognize patterns that indicate “like us”, but I think a number of thought experiments point to either a) there’s no reason to believe AI is “conscious” or b) the conversation has to to be expanded beyond AI.

[nomel]

> the conversation has to to be expanded beyond AI.

Unlikely. I think the same mental machinery that runs tribalism is why humans like to categorize rather than consider things as continuous. And, worse, I think the actual purpose of tribalism is to turn off higher level though, so you, an otherwise social creature, can rationalize the need to kill your fellow man in harsh times. I think "don't go outside the categorical box" is deeply hard wired.

[haswell]

I'm not really following your logic here.

I'm not arguing against the idea that consciousness is a spectrum. If anything, I'm agreeing. I'm just pointing out that if AI is somewhere on that spectrum, there is almost certainly a lot more on that spectrum than we're currently discussing as a species.

I have to point out the irony of the categorical nature of your claim about categorical thinking ;)

[nomel]

Sorry, I definitely wasn't clear. I was agreeing with you, but saying why I think that conversation isn't going to happen.

[haswell]

Ahh, makes sense.

[dtj1123]

The argument is that consciousness is an emergent property of a specific kind of complexity.

[haswell]

But what kind of complexity is that? And why would we conclude that AI has it while other incredibly complex systems (e.g. earth’s habitats, the universe itself) does not?

I’m far more open to the idea that many systems are conscious than the idea that this current generation of LLMs is somehow special.

[dtj1123]

I think those are exactly the right questions.

I'd say that AI is too poorly understood at this point to conclude whether it does or does not possess some form of consciousness. It has a few features that privilege it over other systems like the ones you've described (though I think it's entirely possible that those too are conscious): the networks underpinning modern AI are largely inspired by those we've observed in brains, and the apparently intelligent behaviours exhibited by AI have historically only been exhibited by entities which we accept to be conscious.

[Lerc]

>If there's any reason to take seriously the idea that AI is conscious, we must then take seriously the idea that many other non-living things are conscious.

That, I believe is why the objection to AI exists, that conclusion is unacceptable.

It seems like we are experiencing "Vindication of the Rights of Brutes" all over again.

[haswell]

I understand what you're getting at, but I think you may be misinterpreting me slightly.

I'm not outright dismissing the possibility that AI could be conscious; I'm saying that if we take the possibility that it is seriously, the conversation has to expand beyond AI. I'm not using this argument to conclude that it must therefore be absurd that AI could be conscious, just pointing out that the implications of AI being conscious would reach far beyond just AI. I'm mostly curious if people who find themselves comfortable with the idea that AI might be conscious also find themselves comfortable with the idea that other sufficiently complex systems might be.

Taylor's work was based on the premise that he found it absurd that women deserve the same rights as men. If my conclusion was: "I find it absurd that other things might be conscious, so it is also absurd that AI might be conscious", I think the comparison would be fair. But that's not what I'm getting at.

[Lerc]

I was thinking more of it as Taylor's inadvertent formation of animal rights.

He thought it was absurd, but other people looked at it and went "You know, you might be right there"

[haswell]

Fair, but I still think we're discussing slightly different things. I'm not arguing that "maybe AI is conscious" is absurd.

[Lerc]

Ahh, right.

No, I didn't think you were.

I was just remarking upon the environment in which we find ourselves.