Thread

1. catigula · 1789572833 · focus · HN ↗

   I basically accepted that LLMs could not possibly be conscious when a simple reductio was posed:

   “My dog is zero percent persuasive regarding its conscious experience. However, it’s evident that my dog has conscious experience.”

   It’s obvious that there’s no link between persuasion of consciousness and consciousness. I could write a story with a character, Dumbledore, that does everything in his power to persuade you that he’s a conscious entity.

   He’s still just a character.

   1. hardbass · 1789580971 · focus · HN ↗

      Its not evident to me you are conscious.

      1. catigula · 1789586889 · focus · HN ↗

         You’re mistaking what is evident from what is philosophically knowable.

         It isn’t knowable to you that I am conscious.

         However, it is evident.

         1. hardbass · 1789587107 · focus · HN ↗

            It is not evident.

            It is evident you are murderer.

            Would you be okay with this statement being evident? Why or why not?

            1. catigula · 1789593498 · focus · HN ↗

               I’m not interested in having conversations with people who are bad-faith, deliberately or indiliberately obtuse or otherwise non-responsive to logic.

               1. hardbass · 1789625889 · focus · HN ↗

                  You're the one that started bad faith by claiming some things as beyond logic.

                  1. catigula · 1789653038 · focus · HN ↗

                     I made an argument of inference that underpins all philosophy.

                     You made an argument to solipsism, which historically means you aren't worth discussing philosophy with.

                     1. hardbass · 1789705209 · focus · HN ↗

                        I made the opposite of solipsism. I am asking you to show your receipts.

Unofficial Hacker News client; not affiliated with Y Combinator.