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
[–] 0 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (5 children)

Because we're talking about the same thing in a different language. "Genetics* only mean the instructions used to build the structure of our intelligence. They're not wrong at all, our determinant nature is the result of the structure of our neurons which has a fundamental configuration predominately determined by genetics.

No, it doesn't invalidate it because the twins could be fraternal, having separate DNA, or that could have had such extreme differences in environment that it drastically changed the DNA from the shared base. Excluding those, though, and you can see the deterministic nature of life shining through.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (4 children)

    Because we’re talking about the same thing in a different language. "Genetics* only mean the instructions used to build the structure of our intelligence. They’re not wrong at all, our determination nature is the result of the structure of our neurons which has a fundamental configuration determined by genetics.

    [citation needed]

    No, it doesn’t invalidate it because the twins could be fraternal, having separate DNA,

    Yes, I assumed that we were only talking about identical twins.

    or that could have had such extreme differences in environment that it drastically changed the DNA from the shared base. Excluding those, though, and you can see the deterministic nature of life shining through.

    What about identical twins who did not have extreme differences in environment but who nevertheless turn out quite different? Would you agree that even one example of such a set of twins would falsify your claim?

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

    I'm not sure why you believe citation is needed. Are you arguing that the initial state of the brain is determined by something other than genetics?

    Glad we're on the same page. If there were a significant number of such cases, it would put doubt on my theory, and I'd look for any possible causes.

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

    I'm not sure why you believe citation is needed. Are you arguing that the initial state of the brain is determined by something other than genetics?

    Yes, it is determined by many factors, only one of which is genetics. For example, developmental temperature affects neuronal growth: https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/sciadv.adp9587

    Note the very first two sentences of the introduction: "The wiring of the nervous system follows a complex genetic plan during development. However, because of stochastic processes and environmental factors, genetically identical individuals seldomly show the same phenotypic outcome."

    If there were a significant number of such cases, it would put doubt on my theory, and I'd look for any possible causes.

    Why “a significant number”? Why would one not be enough? It seems like what you’re saying here is “the brain is deterministic, except in particular cases when I know it’s not, and also possibly in other cases that may come up.” Why not just say you don’t know?

    Regardless, aside from my specific questions here, my overall position is that it’s never correct to call the brain deterministic because we literally cannot test it to see if it is. Since there are a myriad of other possible explanations for our observations about the brain, the time to label it deterministic is when we build a time machine or whatever else we’d need to collect all of the spacetime data to test it, and not before that.

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

    Of course factors other than genetics determine the state of the neural network, but the way in which it effects it is in turn determined by genetics. Why more than one to change my mind? Because there is plenty we don't know, and a myriad of potential explanations. I'm just surmising that we are biological automotons transitioning from state-so-state based on the culmination of inputs into the perpetually changing neutral network structure established by our genetics and shaped by the environments impact on it, which can also largely be determined by the same genetic code.

    Environment and genetics are inseparable, of course, so it's "impossible" to test. I can't prove it, I'm just asserting my theory based on the known evidence. I don't "know", but I still believe my theory is correct. That's the distinction. I acknowledge I don't know, and likely never will. Same as you, right?

    You've seen the same evidence, and come to a different conclusion. That's fine, but you can't prove that human intelligence is non-deterministic any more than I can prove that it is. So we'll just have to agree to disagree. I hope that you are feeling gregarious enough to concede that.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 1 point 2 weeks ago*

    Yep, I think that ends it.

    I don’t generally believe things that are untestable, and in this case you have a faith-based position, which of course is your right. But I see no evidence that it would be correct over the many possible other explanations.

    Have a good one, thanks for the discussion.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent