you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] -5 points 2 months ago (10 children)

The fact they are trained to complete sentences and are thus word predicting models only tells us vaguely how they work. It does not tell us anything about their sentience.

The sentience, if there is, comes from the emergent reasoning that develops in the massive neural network to offer actual good predictions: the more you think, the better the predictions.

For example, models trained to produce textual board games predictions can be sounded to show they developed subnetworks corresponding to an inner representation of the states of the game. Models trained to produce images have emergent subnetworks on depth-maps, contours and lighting.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 10 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 2 months ago (9 children)

    Are cells sentient? Bacteria, fungi, etc. Do you think they have any degree of interiority, like how simple animals do?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 9 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 2 months ago (8 children)

    Exactly. It's not so cut and dry. Are they? You can never know until you experience their existence.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 2 months ago (7 children)

    Lol no. Actually cells are demonstrably NOT sentient. They have no capacity for choice. No capacity for emotion or experience. They are literally molecular machinery. And we(scientists) understand that machinery to a shocking degree.

    If you think cells have any degree of sentience, then you must make a similar argument for advanced clockwork machines. Not robots, pure wind-up clockwork automata.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 2 months ago (6 children)

    Ah, so you've experienced each of their existences? Fascinating.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 2 months ago (5 children)

    Please explain to me how a wristwatch is sentient or conscious.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 2 months ago (4 children)

    I can't, since I've never been a wristwatch. Maybe they're not, or maybe they are through a mechanism for which science has no current explanation. We can't know, only surmise.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 2 months ago (3 children)

    Okay, then you're not actually engaging in any degree of coherence. Your ignorance is not wisdom, despite what you seem to have convinced yourself.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 2 months ago (2 children)

    That's some impressive hubris you've got.

    So tell me, in your infinite wisdom, from where does sentience arise and what is the smallest organism that is sentient?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 2 months ago (1 child)

    No, I don't think I will. Because I don't believe there is any answer I can give you that won't be merry with more insults and arrogance. I made the claim that sentience cannot exist in a purely mechanistic system, like a wrist watch. Because there is nothing there unexplained, unknown, or more nuanced than gears and springs.

    The burden of proof lies on you to explain how a wristwatch could have any degree of sentience. And insulting me does nothing but show the emptiness of your claim, and the fragility of your pseudo-wisdom.

    Denying ALL knowledge by taking a bong rip and saying "But how can we ever really know?" It's not wisdom or humility. It's pretending ignorance is wisdom.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 1 point 2 months ago

    You seem to have this backwards. YOU'RE the one making a claim, so the burden of proof is on you. I'm saying it's impossible to know, you are saying you know without a doubt. Prove it.

  • source
  • parent