upvote
Their being statistical models and their being conscious are not contradictory unless proven otherwise. That's not knowledge, it is assumption.

It would appear to me you have no interest in a real, good faith discussion on this topic because you think anyone who disagrees with you is necessarily delusional. Which is a shame, and that's the kind of dogma you are criticizing.

This was exactly the point of the story, it's too uncomfortable to admit that we don't know what consciousness is and what is and isn't conscious, so we just brush it under the rug.

reply
Sorry, I'll be blunt: Are you sure you are not projecting?

My perspective comes from a set of pillars. First, I work at an HPC center, where we support running and development of AI systems, incl. international projects. IOW, I have knowledge about how these systems built, work and needs to continue working.

Moreover, I'm an HPC programmer myself, so I'm not completely uninformed about the math this involving this thing, and I'm lucky enough to have friends who are much more dedicated than me, and we discuss how this thing works and feels like this way.

I'm not an AI hater per se, being programmed AI systems in the past, incl. emergent intelligence systems with multi-agents which can span continents if need be (this was my master's thesis, time flies).

However, knowing what these things are capable of and how they are built. I don't believe them they're conscious/sentient beings. I also had much more time to ponder on these things even before LLMs being a thing. Some hard sci-fi books have asked these questions seriously in their captive adventures way earlier. If one reads these books seriously, there are a lot of philosophical angles to consider and draw upon.

I can discuss in good faith. For hours, days or months even, but throwing "you're a narrow-minded dogmatic luddite neanderthal!" card to anyone disagreeing with you is not it.

reply
Positive, yes. I never called you a luddite or a neanderthal or anything of the kind.

It's perfectly fine to believe they are not conscious, I am not convinced they are, but asserting anyone who disagrees with you is delusional is unfortunate.

reply
From my perspective, you inadvertently implied, but no offense taken, all is well.

No, I didn't assert anything. I have just given examples rooted in my experience.

None of my friends who also happen to know how these things work told or defended that they are conscious, even intelligent. Maybe my friends are dumb, I dunno.

Once I have seen a man who claimed that evil has possessed the POS device at his desk. The thing was printing "cannot connect to server" on the receipt printer every 10 minutes, yet he didn't know how that thing worked, and was a bit too high to read the paper the thing was printing out.

This age's LLM craze is akin to "wonder inventions" of 70s, which are deemed dangerous or harmful in the future. LLMs will be with us, but we need to pass beyond the hype and stop sweeping the problems they create (environmental and societal) under the proverbial rug.

reply
If you didn't mean to say that people who believe AI is conscious are delusional, then I don't understand how to read your comment. If you're interested in a good faith conversation, I'm very confused why, when I asked if anyone sincerely argued that toasters are conscious, you brought up people who were drunk or delusional.
reply
It's a two way street. I might have failed to convey my point clearly, too. While I'm fluent, this is not my native language. Some edge cases in meaning still betrays me and I make mistakes I didn't intend doing.
reply
Not sure what you want from me, if you want to explain yourself I'll listen, if you don't that's fine too.
reply