> Literally the third time you've beaten this straw man. Second actually. Are you an LLM since you're having trouble counting? > Holy shifting the burden of p

> Literally the third time you've beaten this straw man. Second actually. Are you an LLM since you're having trouble counting? > Holy shifting the burden of proof, Batman! It's incumbent on you to show that your fancy pattern-matching system is conscious. No, I never claimed they were conscious, I refuted the claim that we can say with confidence they are definitely not conscious, because such a claim requires knowledge humanity simply doesn't possess. Perhaps you should reread this thread if you're unclear about what I claimed. > I realize it's not easy for you to back up your bold claims, but all I see is a bunch of overconfident CS majors refusing to face up to the hard problem of consciousness[1] The hard problem is an alleged problem, there is no proof that it's real. All thought experiments that purport to show its existence (Mary's Room, p-zombies), have acceptable possible answers under physicalist interpretations, and some neuroscientists are now pursuing such theories [1]. [1] https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/psychology/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2015.00500/full https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/psychology/articles/10....