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
[–] 1 point 2 weeks ago (6 children)

Holy shit fuck off, I'm done being cordial. You haven't had a cogent reaction to a single thought I've had. I've been nothing but patient as over and over you failed to recognize basic common terms or even attempt to conceptualize my many helpful examples (well, I guess I could have given more, but you don't really deserve it so I won't feel too bad) so that you could understand the subject I'm talking about. I have never asked you to agree with me, or asserted that the things I am discussing are unquestionably true, especially solely due to some philosophical authority; the reason I have resorted to pointing you to literal wikipedia articles as philosophy 101 content is because you have demonstrated a complete lack of understanding of the subject matter. How could you possibly hope to be correct if you cannot understand the argument that is being made?

But you aren't here to be correct, or to learn, or to reach a greater understanding through discussion, or to explore the beauty of your mind-- because yours is rather ugly, isn't it? You're here to troll people on social media to feel good about yourself. If you don't like philosophy, here's some pop psychology-- people tend to assume others are like them in some fundamental ways. I have spent this entire thread trying to believe you are here to learn or teach, not to troll; while you have apparently spent it assuming anyone who disagrees with you must be brainwashed by Big Psych. FYI I have made an explicit effort to avoid learning about what Philosophers(tm) think (legitimately who the fuck is David Chalmers?), because I prefer to avoid their influence when practicing philosophy myself; and yet the things I am talking about here are easily independently discoverable by me, someone with little to no formal training in the subject who actively avoids duplicating others' work where possible. Honestly at this point you're starting to make me think you might not have an internal subjective experience, because I think if I experienced what it was to be you, my soul would combust out of embarrassment.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (5 children)

    What are you talking about, "done being cordial," "nothing but patient," "spent the entire thread"? You literally replied to me like 2 times before this. You hallucinating some long-running conversation or something? LOL

    You say, "I have never asked you to agree with me, or asserted that the things I am discussing are unquestionably true," but then you insist I must be an entirely ignorant moron who simply disagrees with you because I don't know anything about the topic... if you believe people can understand the topic and disagree with you... then why do you not act that way in practice?

    Not a single neuron in your brain ever fired when I asked you to explain why you believe what you do; you immediately just jumped to "this person questioned the sacred scriptures! They must not understand anything!" And just posted a rant explaining how I must not know anything at all for daring to disagree and not automatically buy into your claims.

    FYI I have made an explicit effort to avoid learning about what Philosophers™ think (legitimately who the fuck is David Chalmers?),

    Yeah, and so you mindlessly absorb popular ideas without even knowing who they are from. The idea of "subjective experience" was popularized by Chalmers, who used it as his basis for his framework of "subjective experience" being "consciousness." The term itself he didn't invent, he borrowed it from Nagel, and so the term never existed in the literature until 1974.

    Apparently, according to you, philosophy did not exist until 1974, and so me, disagreeing with a stupid paper, is equivalent to me denying all of philosophy!

    You also say, "You haven’t had a cogent reaction to a single thought I’ve had," but what cogent point have you even attempted to make, other than claiming that I must fail to understand your genius for not automatically agreeing with you?

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

    Any second now, Justin Kerprank is gonna jump out and tell me I've been ker-pranked. I refuse to believe that someone who understands the history of the subject doesn't know what I'm talking about-- so clearly you should-- but like 99% of your responses have misinterpreted what I'm saying, and then you switched to just trolling me. Are you intentionally misunderstanding me? Are you trying to make a point about the terms I'm using? Are you here to have a serious conversation or just to misrepresent me to win the argument? Is it somehow both? Are you trying to use the Socratic method to imply your disagreement without indicating you understand my point? If so, why? You ask me why I am not acting on my belief that someone could reasonably disagree with me; it's because you haven't voiced any disagreement! Your responses have so far been almost entirely confusion about what I'm saying or insults.

    There is one exception, where you correctly pointed out a mistake: referring to the grey squares as "are the same physical color" is inconsistent with the language I was using, it should be "have the same wavelength of light". Color is a subjective experience (which, for the third time, does NOT mean a physical experience happening to a subject (like you), it means your perception of that physical experience). Do you understand what I'm trying to communicate about the difference between a physical phenomena, and your perception of said physical phenomena? Is it a communication issue on my end? I thought I was being pretty clear, but obviously I'm biased on that front.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (3 children)

    Still, Chalmerite bug person cannot admit that someone who disagrees with them might disagree for reasons other than misunderstanding. Not a single bone in your body will ever allow you to admit that other people may disagree for reasons other than being ignorant of the holy scriptures, because then you'd actually have to have neurons fire in your brain to justify why you believe what you do. Every post you make must be layered with long rants about how I do not understand anything because it is necessary to avoid actually having to justify why you believe what you do, which requires independent thought.

    Color is a subjective experience

    Why is color a subjective experience? I mean, the image you sent me is something you sent to me because you knew I would look at it and see the same colors you are seeing... that seems pretty objective to me.

    (which, for the third time, does NOT mean a physical experience happening to a subject (like you), it means your perception of that physical experience).

    I'm not sure I see the distinction. My perception is just a physical experience happening to me.

    Do you understand what I’m trying to communicate about the difference between a physical phenomena, and your perception of said physical phenomena?

    No, you keep just describing the same thing twice but saying one is different by fiat without ever actually giving any explanation as to why.

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

    And around and around we go. How many times will I explain the same thing, and how many times will you not disagree, but fail to understand my argument entirely?

    Chalmerite bug person cannot admit that someone who disagrees with them might disagree for reasons other than misunderstanding

    "Do you understand what I’m trying to communicate"

    No

    You can rant all you want about how I'm arguing from authority (I'm not) or how you're disagreeing rather than not understanding, but you keep literally saying you do not understand.

    Your perception of the squares in the image is "subjective" because you are seeing the same light from both grey squares but perceiving it differently based on context. You are literally percieving the same objective physical phenomenon in two different subjective ways.

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

    You can rant all you want about how I’m arguing from authority (I’m not) or how you’re disagreeing rather than not understanding, but you keep literally saying you do not understand.

    I am challenging you to actually justify your position, which you have not done so.

    Your perception of the squares in the image is “subjective” because you are seeing the same light from both grey squares but perceiving it differently based on context. You are literally percieving the same objective physical phenomenon in two different subjective ways.

    Why does something differing based upon context make it subjective? That would make it contextual. It's not the same physical phenomenon: one is a gray square in the context of a shadow, and the other is not. Those are not the same things.

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

    I am challenging you to actually justify your position, which you have not done so.

    Ok, except you didn't do that, you said you didn't understand (a universal prompt to be more basic, not go more in depth) and then switched to insults for some reason. Forgive me for having a low opinion of that communication style. But since you do appear to care I will try to give you a more convincing example.

    How about The Dress? Given the exact same image, with the same context, and an incredibly large sample size to cover any confounding variables, different people will percieve the same physical phenomena (the image) in two entirely different ways, to the point that many people cannot see it the other way. Does that not make The Dress truly "subjective" in the way that I think you were using it, ie., that different subjects (people) experience different things (percieve different colors) when exposed to the same physical phenomena (the image)?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent