>> And just because you understand how to build an AI and manipulate it, doesn't mean you can prove that one has or hasn't attained consciousness unless you're

>> And just because you understand how to build an AI and manipulate it, doesn't mean you can prove that one has or hasn't attained consciousness unless you're going to provide me with the "criteria to define consciousness" that I asked for in the original comment. The question to ask here is why would anyone even think that an LLM has "attained consciousness". Who says one has? If we don't know what consciousness is, we certainly can tell who is saying that something is conscious, when they, themselves, don't even know what "conscious" means in the first place. If I say that a rock has achieved consciousness -and, sure, there is ample evidence; for, look, see how it sits in silent meditation, staring at the starts and contemplating the mystery of existence? It must surely be enlightened- what exactly am I saying? I'm saying that a thing occurred, that I can't describe and for which I can't provide any evidence, because I don't even know what that evidence should look like. So I'd basically be talking nonsense, like all the people who say LLMs have attained, or could have attained, or may one day attain consciousness, or whatever it is those people are saying. Or, more prosaically, people say that LLMs something-something consciousness because they keep seeing those systems described as "AIs" in the press, and they know, from their experience with Star Trek and similar franchises, that "AIs" are conscious. Someone called a thing AI and now everyone is wondering if that thing is really intelligent. Disappointing.