> Indeed, the chatbot is less real than the character, because the character is the product of another mind, while the chatbot's words are the product of complex mathematical operations conducted over a massive database of all the words humans have uttered, arranged by their frequency in relation to one another.
How is a fictional character the product of someone's mind, but a character generated from a massive database of words from other people's minds is not?
Believing a specific architecture is not capable of consciousness is a different matter. I am seeing statements that simply state things like "it is software or a machine and therefore cannot be conscious" without any further clarification. That clearly betrays a belief in souls.
Why? What's so strange about a human brain? It is a physical system of molecules running electrical and chemical signals. We already have direct proof that physical systems support consciousness. So why do you believe other physical systems can't have consciousness? Give me your definition of what consciousness is.
You don't have to know that. All you have to know is that you can feel and is conscious, and this consciousness is a result of your physical body..
Yes but you are not me, I am me. I don't know you are conscious or can "feel". Both you and an LLM present themselves using words and other external indications only. If you argue brain scans, then similar experiments have been done on LLMs too.
>but how do I know you are not faking the outputs of feeling?
You won't..but it does not matter.
>Where is your disproof that other physical systems can't hold consciousness?
I said no such thing. Just that there is no reason to think that LLMs are conscious. If we find some natural or artificial entity with some unknown and un-inspectable thing inside it, that behaves in an intelligent manner, I would not be sure that it is not conscious.
Why unknown? The human brain is known and inspectable, then you should say it is not conscious. You haven't yet shown why you think an LLM can't be conscious. You are just saying "just because" with no reason or parameters given.
So what is the reason to not think it can be conscious? Brains are physical systems, so are LLMs.
How is a human brain not inspectable? Tell me what part of it is beyond inspection? You have been making up absurd non sequiturs throughout this chat, ending with this beyond absurd statement now.
So are rocks. Are rocks conscious? Idol worshipers might have a point after all!
>Tell me what part of it is beyond inspection?
Oh, you can dissect a brain as much as you like. Is that what you mean by "inspection". I was thinking more like "How does it work". In that sense, we don't know a lot.
Rocks don't talk to me and think and act intelligently. Current LLM's do.
We don't know a lot about how chaotic systems work either in terms of predicting its outcome even if we know every individual step. The argument you gave for the brain equally applies to the LLMs, or any other complex system. So your premise is wrong.
Define consciousness right here, otherwise we have nothing else to discuss. You keep making up undefined crap and circular "it is it, because it is it" nonsense without proof. If you cannot immediately and clearly define consciousness in a testable clear manner right now, I will ignore and stop all conversation with you until you do.
Potentially past models could have been. None before came close to being this articulate and able to think and talk on our level before, and do things beyond us like difficult math problems.
You said "rocks don't talk to me and think and act intelligently." But a coma patient who is conscious would be unable to talk and act in an intelligent manner. That does not means that they are not conscious.
So consciousness does not require externally observable behavior. That was my point. So a rock could be conscious for all we know..
Also, If you are irritated by my "crap", why don't you stop replying? Are you paid or somehow obliged to correct every crap talker on the internet or something?
I am open to the concept of every entity having some measure of consciousness. At least it is internally consistent. As of yet though, if you want to go anything at all beyond "Only I exist", you will have to see that certain organizations of physical systems appear to have consciousness and certain organizations don't. You haven't yet given any definition still of what exactly you think consciousness is, and are trying to act special by thinking your own, probably not well formed, definition is the only right one.
It is a waste of time to talk to you as you keep refusing to define what you think consciousness is but keep talking as if its a settled matter that you know what is and isn't conscious. So correct, I see no further point in talking.
delichon · · focus · HN ↗
How is a fictional character the product of someone's mind, but a character generated from a massive database of words from other people's minds is not?
WarmWash · · focus · HN ↗
hardbass · · focus · HN ↗
Terr_ · · focus · HN ↗
"Why can't you just admit that you think only tree-parsers have souls!?"
hardbass · · focus · HN ↗
lolakutty · · focus · HN ↗
Problem is that we don't know any such hardware..
hardbass · · focus · HN ↗
lolakutty · · focus · HN ↗
hardbass · · focus · HN ↗
lolakutty · · focus · HN ↗
It should have the ability to feel...
hardbass · · focus · HN ↗
lolakutty · · focus · HN ↗
hardbass · · focus · HN ↗
lolakutty · · focus · HN ↗
1. That you are conscious.
2. That you have a human body with a brain.
This implies that your body can harbor consciousness. That is what is special about your body in this context. And that answers your question.
hardbass · · focus · HN ↗
I am sure of my body, I am not sure of you. I can feel, but how do I know you are not faking the outputs of feeling?
1. Scooters can move from a place to a place. 2. That a scooter has a body with an engine.
Therefore scooters are special and cars don't exist.
lolakutty · · focus · HN ↗
You won't..but it does not matter.
>Where is your disproof that other physical systems can't hold consciousness?
I said no such thing. Just that there is no reason to think that LLMs are conscious. If we find some natural or artificial entity with some unknown and un-inspectable thing inside it, that behaves in an intelligent manner, I would not be sure that it is not conscious.
hardbass · · focus · HN ↗
lolakutty · · focus · HN ↗
Human brain is not "inspectable".
> LLM can't be conscious.
Because there is no reason to think so, and suggestion that would be like suggesting the existence of ghosts and goblins.
Extremely unscientific.
hardbass · · focus · HN ↗
How is a human brain not inspectable? Tell me what part of it is beyond inspection? You have been making up absurd non sequiturs throughout this chat, ending with this beyond absurd statement now.
lolakutty · · focus · HN ↗
So are rocks. Are rocks conscious? Idol worshipers might have a point after all!
>Tell me what part of it is beyond inspection?
Oh, you can dissect a brain as much as you like. Is that what you mean by "inspection". I was thinking more like "How does it work". In that sense, we don't know a lot.
hardbass · · focus · HN ↗
We don't know a lot about how chaotic systems work either in terms of predicting its outcome even if we know every individual step. The argument you gave for the brain equally applies to the LLMs, or any other complex system. So your premise is wrong.
lolakutty · · focus · HN ↗
These are not required for consciousness.
> Current LLM's do.
Computer chat bots are not a new thing. So were all the past ones conscious too?
hardbass · · focus · HN ↗
Define consciousness right here, otherwise we have nothing else to discuss. You keep making up undefined crap and circular "it is it, because it is it" nonsense without proof. If you cannot immediately and clearly define consciousness in a testable clear manner right now, I will ignore and stop all conversation with you until you do.
Potentially past models could have been. None before came close to being this articulate and able to think and talk on our level before, and do things beyond us like difficult math problems.
lolakutty · · focus · HN ↗
So consciousness does not require externally observable behavior. That was my point. So a rock could be conscious for all we know..
Also, If you are irritated by my "crap", why don't you stop replying? Are you paid or somehow obliged to correct every crap talker on the internet or something?
hardbass · · focus · HN ↗
lolakutty · · focus · HN ↗
I said no such thing..lol...If you are hanging to this, it is a waste of my time to talk to you.
hardbass · · focus · HN ↗
lolakutty · · focus · HN ↗
But at least, I gave my definition of consciousness, and at least there is one person who can test for it (oneself).
cindyllm · · focus · HN ↗
[dead]
levitatorius · · focus · HN ↗