|
|
|
|
|
by Fraterkes
28 days ago
|
|
The assumption of this sort of argument, if I understand it correctly, is that consciousness is just an ordinary byproduct that appears (or grows gradually) somewhere on the spectrum of complexity. If that’s true, mastering language is basically orthogonal to being conscious (as you’d maybe expect, GPT-2 was pretty good at language, but had a relatively tiny amount of “neurons”). The same is arguably true for world modeling: a math textbook has a very complex and coherent model of a world, and is, probably, unconscious. Then the question is: what reason do we have to assume that these models have some form of consciousness? |
|