[Jtarii]

>That's like saying if matter itself is not understood and well defined (which it isn't) in the first place, it is pretty pointless to debate if jumping from a skyscraper is or is not deadly.

This is just a nonsensical rebuttal. We can easily experimentally verify that jumping from a skyscraper is dangerous.

[starbugs]

It's a pointless debate in a scientific, left brain sense. Who can prove that you aren't the only consciousness in the universe and you are basically dreaming your experimental results up? Experimental verifications exist only in a limited scope.

If your argument is that matter brings about consciousness somehow and therefore LLMs can in principle be conscious, that's as good as claiming the opposite. There's no experiment that can falsify either.

As a being that knows what consciousness is intuitively, you already know that a graphics card is most likely not conscious.

[Jtarii]

>As a being that knows what consciousness is intuitively, you already know that a graphics card is most likely not conscious.

I would say that it is more likely than not that a graphics card exhibits some form of consciousness. But I am a panpsychist, I believe an individual atom has some form of consciousness.

Ultimately consciousness has to come from somewhere, and it being a fundamental property of matter is a good a place as any.

[starbugs]

> I would say that it is more likely than not that a graphics card exhibits some form of consciousness. But I am a panpsychist, I believe an individual atom has some form of consciousness.

Fair enough point. But then I guess you'd also say that a piece of silicon or sand exhibits some form of consciousness. I don't think that's what people mean when they talk about the potential of LLMs (the algorithm) being conscious or somehow developing consciousness?