3 ms·
If you can substantiate your assertion that LLMs aren't conscious without a definition of consciousness, you're welcome to do that too. I don't see why a defin
by estearum 1mo ago
If you can substantiate your assertion that LLMs aren't conscious without a definition of consciousness, you're welcome to do that too.
I don't see why a definition is necessary. The actual problem is you just don't have a way to substantiate that belief without resorting to complete nonsense about brain atoms being more specialer (!!) than atoms that exist outside of a skull.
It would be simple to disprove us by just stating your evidence for how you know LLMs aren't conscious.
- deleted 1mo ago[deleted]
- nozzlegear 1mo agoI literally just wrote about consciousness being undefined, and now you're asking me to define it? I'm not a philosopher, ask someone more qualified. Better yet, ask your LLM to give you a mealy-mouthed answer which fits your narrative. > I don't see why a definition is necessary. Don't waste my time with your sophistry. Words mean nothing to you beyond how you can twist them.
- estearum 1mo agoI said specifically you don't need to explicitly and cleanly define it. Is your position now that in order to substantiate your belief that LLMs are not conscious, you'd first have to define it explicitly? I don't see why that'd necessarily be true, but if that's what you're arguing, then that's fine. In that case: if you need to define consciousness in order to substantiate your belief that LLMs are not conscious, and you can't define consciousness, then we're back to the original question: where does your confidence they're not conscious come from?