Thread

1. insin · 1791023739 · focus · HN ↗

   I wrote “I am alive” on a piece of paper, and placed it into a photocopier. What I saw next has shocking implications (science.org)

   1. raldi · 1791024151 · focus · HN ↗

      If you lived in the world of Star Trek, could Data convince you he was conscious? How?

      1. ACCount39 · 1791024374 · focus · HN ↗

         It's funny how sci-fi has mulled over the exact scenario for decades, and even converged to an answer - but when reality came knocking and it was no longer a far off future world hypothetical, all of it was forgotten overnight.

         The power of wishful thinking is too strong. "Today's AI can't be conscious because I don't want it to be."

         1. yoz-y · 1791025928 · focus · HN ↗

            The conversation varies between “can’t be” and “isn’t”.

            Most sci-fi AIs are way beyond our current models. I’ve yet to see one that would actually pass a Turing test (that said, I’ve not tried models that were post trained to actually try to behave like a human).

            Consciousness itself is a term that is not really defined anyway, so depending on each’s take the answer will be different.

            1. akie · 1791026163 · focus · HN ↗

               I think it's pretty clear that the Turing test has been passed. People use AI as therapists, they fall in love with it, all while knowing that it's a piece of software.

               1. YurgenJurgensen · 1791034350 · focus · HN ↗

                  Once again: The Turing test requires a knowledgeable interrogator deliberately attempting to identify the machine.

                  The people you cite want to believe, and so are effectively the opposite.

                  Of course, you probably already knew this and have had it explained to you multiple times and are choosing to ignore this detail, but possible that someone else reading this might interpret what you wrote as a cogent argument.

               2. yoz-y · 1791034662 · focus · HN ↗

                  I disagree. For me this shows that people can fall in love with a non-human, and being human is unnecessary for the purpose of giving (some) therapy advice.

                  LLMs do sound human, I’m not contesting that. But if pressed they will not react as humans. There is an infinite amount of questions that an LLM will answer for which a human would give you a blank stare, told you to shove it or call the police.

               3. lovich · 1791037052 · focus · HN ↗

                  While I think that the Turing test has effectively been passed, someone falling in love with AI isn’t a strong argument given there’s people who have done things like marry the Eiffel Tower[1]

                  [1] <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;Erika_Eiffel" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;Erika_Eiffel

                  1. Topfi · 1791037912 · focus · HN ↗

                     I’d get it, if it were a building of significance, but scrap metal [0] is a bit weird to me.

                     [0] <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;Victor_Lustig" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;Victor_Lustig

            2. Topfi · 1791027834 · focus · HN ↗

               Good old ELIZA doesn’t do that bad on the Turing Test, for all its historic significance, it really shouldn’t be invoked in discussions about LLMs [0] and has been beaten by all manner of models.

               [0] <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;arxiv.org&#x2F;html&#x2F;2503.23674v1" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;arxiv.org&#x2F;html&#x2F;2503.23674v1

Unofficial Hacker News client; not affiliated with Y Combinator.