> 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.
And I am sure that lolakutty will momentarily bestow the world with a consciousness test, solving a problem that has eluded millions of top thinking man hours over millennia of trying...
However, I feel rather certain, that deep down the proposed test will just be another "is it chemical goo?"
He gave the classic "I feel" argument. The problem is I am not him. To me lolakutty and an LLM both can only present their feelings or state via external indications. Both he and an LLM can say they are conscious. Who if any of them is lying?
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..
WarmWash · · focus · HN ↗
However, I feel rather certain, that deep down the proposed test will just be another "is it chemical goo?"
hardbass · · focus · HN ↗