3 ms·
> you are not deferring to the overwhelming wealth of evidence that can prove rocks are not similar to us "Similarity to us" is not a comprehensive metric for
by naasking 3y ago
> you are not deferring to the overwhelming wealth of evidence that can prove rocks are not similar to us
"Similarity to us" is not a comprehensive metric for sentience, that's the point.
> firmly believe that we can extend simple logic to conclude that LLMs are software
Yes, LLMs are software, so what? Whatever sentience is, it's an integral part of our information processing, and software does information processing. There is literally no reason to conclude that software cannot do the type of information processing that our brain does for sentience.
Even if we agree that panpsychism is incorrect, I still do not agree that we know enough about sentience to claim that software cannot be sentient. I do not claim that LLMs are sentient, but they certainly could be, and the fact that they seem very intelligent, more intelligent than most humans in some ways, is a big red flag.
- smoldesu 3y agoFair enough. I just flat-out disagree; nothing I've seen suggests that software "could be" sentient. The burden of proof is yours, if you want to state that software has the potential for sentience.
- naasking 3y agoThe burden of proof has already been met. The Bekenstein Bound already tells us that any finite volume contains finite information, and any finite system can therefore be perfectly reproduced by a finite state machine. The human brain and body are finite volumes, therefore they can be perfectly replicated by a finite state machine. Unless you believe in some form of dualism, this reproduction necessarily includes sentience. Therefore, software can be sentient.
- smoldesu 3y agoIf things turn out to be that straightforward, then I'll be one hell of a fool.