upvote

points

by bigyabai1 days ago |
comments
upvoteby the847212 hours ago|
next
[-]
https://www.scottaaronson.com/papers/philos.pdf
reply
upvoteby Chance-Device1 days ago|
prev|
[-]
The Chinese room is nonsense though. How did it get every conceivable reply to every conceivable question? Presumably because people thought of and answered everything conceivable. Meaning that you’re actually talking to a Chinese room plus multiple people composite system. You would not argue that the human part of that system isn’t conscious.

But this distraction aside, my point is this: there is only mechanism. If someone’s demand to accept consciousness in some other entity is to experience those experiences for themselves, then that’s a nonsensical demand. You might just as well assume everyone and everything else is a philosophical zombie.

reply
upvoteby bigyabai1 days ago|
parent|
[-]
> You would not argue that the human part of that system isn’t conscious.

Sure I would. The human part is not being inferenced, the data is. LLM output in this circumstance is no more conscious than a book that you read by flipping to random pages.

> You might just as well assume everyone and everything else is a philosophical zombie.

I don't assume anything about everyone or everything's intelligence. I have a healthy distrust of all claims.

reply
upvoteby Chance-Device23 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
The CR is equivalent to a human being asked a question, thinking about it and answering. The setup is the same thing, it’s just framed in a way that obfuscates that.

And sure, you can assume that nobody and nothing else is conscious (I think we’re talking about this rather than intelligence) and I won’t try to stop you, I just don’t think it’s a very useful stance. It kind of means that assuming consciousness or not means nothing, since it changes nothing, which is more or less what I’m saying.

reply