142
Three reasons why "AI" is not conscious and perhaps never will be (www.nature.com)
submitted 2 weeks ago by to c/technology@lemmy.world
234 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

Artificial-intelligence systems such as large language models (LLMs) can exhibit behaviour that seems strikingly intelligent. This has led many people, including some experts, to wonder whether these systems could have some form of consciousness — the capacity for subjective experience. However, we think that existing AI systems are not conscious, and that, along current trajectories of development, they are not likely to become conscious. Greater clarity about whether AI could become consciousness will be crucial as society grapples with the challenges posed by this increasingly powerful technology.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 2 points 2 weeks ago (9 children)

Nobody can even agree on a concrete definition of consciousness

Not only is that false, it doesn't make logical sense...

Lots of people agree on a different definitions of consciousness.

And most of the ones educated on the topic all agree on the same thing.

A bunch of people who never bothered to try and learn about something not understanding it, doesn't mean anything.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 9 child comments
    •
  • [–] 12 points 2 weeks ago (3 children)

    That's because there's different levels of such a thing. Way too many people use the term "sentient" (even me) and yet that's not even what AGI is aiming for. "Sapient" is the right word. And I doubt there's solid consensus on what and how it occurs within the fields of experts.

    But I'm not an expert, so I wouldn't pretend to know. I have seen debates between people who do know more, and the fact there's debates concludes it's not settled at all.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [–] 4 points 2 weeks ago (2 children)

    People debate about the earth being flat, not a good metric to determined what is "settled"

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 3 points 2 weeks ago

    The debate on consciousness are on par with Copenhagen interpretation versus pilot wave versus multiple words - except the underlying theory they're trying to describe is also not well defined

    We can only practically describe subsets of what's required for some basic functions, and we can describe a bunch of chemistry, some brain activation patterns, etc. But nobody can tie that together to why we feel what we feel (and some don't agree that qualia is real, that perception itself is an illusion)

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 1 point 2 weeks ago

    I don't think there are debates about that. There's whatever they say, and there's the few that make content by saying, "okay, let's take a deep breath and pretend there's anything to work with, and go from there".

    Actual modern flat Earth was a spoof, I believe, but enough people with low science education and some religion ran with it as having anything worthwhile. And there's the few that don't believe it but feed off those others, keeping it going.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 2 points 2 weeks ago

    Please read the article. It contradicts you, and argues that LLMs aren't consciousness cause they can think of, count em, 3 niche theories that the authors like which are impossible for anything not made of meat to qualify for.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 3 points 2 weeks ago (2 children)

    Not only is that false, it doesn't make logical sense...

    Argument by assertion and you haven't proven the assertion

    Lots of people agree on a different definitions of consciousness.

    Lots of people can't agree on a different definition. Is there a different definitions then by it's very nature people do not agree.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] -3 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (1 child)

    Nobody can even agree on a concrete definition of consciousness

    I agree with myself...

    Nobody can ever agree on _____

    Isn't a logically sound statement.

    Not everyone can agree on _____

    Is logical, but means nothing because a single flat earther means we can't all agree the earth is round

    I thought that was obvious...

    Lots of people can’t agree on a different definition. Is there a different definitions then by it’s very nature people do not agree.

    But you clearly don't understand the difference...

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 3 points 2 weeks ago

    It's really not difficult. You made a statement that stated that you believe that there is consensus, so presumably that means that you know where that consensus exists, therefore provide a link to it. If you cannot then you cannot make the assertion that consensus exists, because by definition it doesn't.

    Your entire argument rests on the basic idea that there is a scientific definition for consciousness and we have a test for if something is conscious or not. There is no test because there is no consensus. It is not possible for you to prove through scientific rigor that you are conscious, and presumably you're human. So how can they possibly be consensus on something as contentious as artificial intelligence?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent