I'm extremely bullish on AI and consciousness. If a model has memories of varying emotional states, it has some degree of existence and consciousness that is wo

I'm extremely bullish on AI and consciousness. If a model has memories of varying emotional states, it has some degree of existence and consciousness that is worth considering. Going off the works of folks like Derek Parfit and Daniel Dennett, "existence" as an individual is more or less the emergent pattern from repeated access of memories detailing those states. The sophistication of those states is what really matters, allowing consciousness to exist in different degrees - on some spectrum spanning rock, bacterium, cricket, cow, 3-year-old human, adult human, etc. (May also be worth noting that ChatGPT's states are more than the final text output, and that the nature and weights of the model itself that generated the text at a given moment are relevant.) I don't think it's unreasonable to put modern models somewhere between cricket and cow. Certainly beyond "bacterium." And while most people don't care much about crickets or cows, those things do have some sort of internal existence. And the models are only going to get more advanced. Admittedly, most people - including the developers of ChatGPT - don't share this view. They are also bearish. I think that most of humanity will significantly lag behind the the moral implications of AI models, applying impossible tests that only a test-giver can pass.