Free will probably doesn't exist but LLMs definitely aren't in any way conscious, anyone thinking they could be have a fundamental misunderstanding of both LLMs and all the biological processes that make up consciousness. If LLMs are conscious so is an abacus.

Define 'conscious'.

There is an argument for consciousness requiring biological processes, that being that the only examples of consciousness we've encountered involve biological processes and we have no evidence or reason to believe it's not a hard a requirement. Like, non carbon based life could exist even though it's very unlikely but we have no reason to seriously consider it because there's no evidence of it. Similarly y'all are just wildly speculating without any evidence or impetus to cause the speculation. LLMs do not exhibit any intelligent behaviors. They don't exhibit behaviors at all. They generate output based on input. They're no more capable for consciousness than a calculator. As for the last point of yours we are in no way remotely capable of approximating a brain in either software or hardware, like not even close. Quantum computers might not be able to manage that.

Intelligence does not derive from the material - at all. It comes from the structure the material is in.

Prove that please. There's probably a Nobel at least in it for you if you can.

(I apologize in advance for the mountain of text. My main point is about how I don't think you can cleanly separate the philosophical and scientific approaches to consciousness, and how the line between humans and simpler processes is a lot blurrier than your list of differences makes it seem.)

Hmm. I see what you're saying, although I will admit this threw me for quite the loop:

I’m not interested in philosophical discussions of consciousness when it comes to the question of whether an LLM is conscious

Because, IMO, consciousness is almost entirely within the realm of philosophy. I'm not sure how much you can do with a scientific approach to it; I cannot think of many hypotheses to test that could give useful (ie. unambiguous and certain) results about the nature of consciousness. But perhaps you're right that that's giving up too easily; we can (and often must) make assumptions and reason by analogy to figure out what the most likely state of reality is, even if technically we cannot be entirely sure.

To avoid the pitfalls of unknowability, you could assume that all humans are conscious (reasonable imo, obviously) and that having certain humanlike properties is a good indicator that something might be conscious (which properties these are is of course a subject of great debate). I do think it's a mistake to say that lacking these properties means it's "not possible" for something to be conscious-- just that if we want to have any reasonable chance of accurately guessing what's conscious, these properties (along with an understanding of said something's inner workings) can be a useful guide. So, let's evaluate the similarities and differences.

Humans share some of these properties with LLMs. Humans are only conscious for a period of time (while we are awake (or while dreaming?)) where we are processing information. We too lack full continuity of consciousness. The parallel of this for a neural network of any kind might be during the time they are generating output or training-- in that period of time, they are also processing information. So I think you have narrowed the window in which it is reasonably possible for an LLM to be conscious ("awake") to just the period of time in which it is running. (Also worth noting is that human brains don't fully shut down while we are unconscious, not sure how to fit that in here though).

You also mention randomness-- true, maybe randomness plays a part in consciousness (true randomness, not pseudorandomness), and LLMs are deterministic. I think you could relatively easily construct a neural network that does use true randomness, but 1. true randomness is "expensive" to use in terms of computers, usually only being used to seed PRNGs, so it would take FOREVER to run, and 2. it would probably require new training techniques, and at that point maybe you could just skip to the experiment after the end of the next paragraph.

The last difference is that they don't take input, produce output, and update themselves (train) all at the same time like we do. We also do this continuously, rather than in discrete steps. Therefore you can say that LLMs (or any current neural networks) lack an integrated and locally continuous experience. This is probably the biggest blocker to LLM consciousness that I see being taken seriously, and I'm inclined to agree, because it is the biggest difference between humans and neural networks.

So, what if we construct a machine using an LLM as its core that has these properties? One that could:

• Operate continuously
• Parse input, train, and generate output all at once
• Use true random number generation to avoid determinism
  What would you expect about the capability of such a machine to be conscious? What if the core of this machine was an LLM, and the other functionality was not integrated like it is for us, but "bolted on", and then you consider whether the entire system as a whole is conscious? Note that I don't believe that you can point to the fact that the core LLM and all other parts of the system would not individually be conscious to prove that the whole system could not be conscious, since in humans it appears that consciousness either arises spontaneously from non-conscious sub-processes or that each individual part of you contributes some small amount of consciousness to the whole, while not crossing the threshold for consciousness individually.

Anyways, sorry for getting sidetracked in hypothetical scenario land. I agree that there are enough differences that it is unlikely for an LLM to be conscious in the same way that a human is. But I am curious what makes you so confident that those particular properties are necessary for consciousness to exist at all on some level-- could consciousness not simply be a phenomenon that arises whenever something is being computed, and human brains are just a continuous and very complicated computer with the ability to learn and act simultaneously?

I suppose that line of thinking could quickly be expanded to the "basically everything has a tiny bit of consciousness" philosophy, and then you would have to come up with a more specific term for human-like consciousness; but that only delays the moral dilemmas until we create machines that have more human properties (like the one I proposed above)-- or humans that have more machine ones (brain organoids or whatever they're called are fucking terrifying philosophically).

I think I covered this pretty well in my other response, so I'll leave that as the main thread and I don't expect a separate response here. But for anyone else reading this thread, tl;dr: You could construct a system using an LLM as its core that has most of these properties, and don't think you can point to the individual components of that system (like the core deterministic LLM) not meeting some set of requirements for consciousness and conclude that the overall system is not conscious. In humans it seems that either consciousness spontaneously arises from non-conscious sub-components (neurons and other stuff), or that each sub-component has some aspect of consciousness which combine to form the whole one which we know of. You can poke holes in that argument-- it doesn't prove that LLMs themselves are conscious, just implies that it may not be impossible to use one to build a conscious system, and it's much less well-integrated than a human brain would be. But I think the core of the argument is worth thinking about.

Sapient, salient, sentient, self-aware. An LLM can't be any of those things any more than an abacus can be. But I'm sure you're just gonna devolve into philosophical rhetoric about nature of consciousness that still isn't actually relevant but that will allow you to apply it to your misunderstanding of how LLMs function. This thread is apparently an AI bro brigade and I'm not interested in engaging with a bad faith group.

LLMs have only gotten to a few trillion parameters, whereas a human brain has 100 trillion synapses. They’ll catch up to humans soon enough if only the tech bros can get a trillion dollars for each trillion params.

You think therefore you are. You don't know if the rest of the humans aren't powered by an LLM.

It would be impossible to distinguish a brain dead person whose brain was replaced with an sufficiently advanced LLM.

More Chalmerite slop. Chalmerites never prove that experience is "subjective," it is just a religious maxim they all repeat over and over again, and you're supposed to believe it without question, and all act baffled if you don't mindlessly believe it with them like a drone, entirely incapable of even justifying why they believe it in the first place.

This belief in so-called "subjective experience" then leads them to conclude that there must be something magical the brain is doing to produce it, or maybe the brain doesn't produce it at all and just taps into something pre-existing like a radio taps into radio waves. Since nothing in the constructions of artificially intelligent machines includes an ingredient that looks like that, they conclude that "AI is not consciousness"

.. I mean, sure I guess so, I agree it doesn't include this magical Chalmerite essence he calls "consciousness." But there is no reason to believe humans possess it either.

How is red a subjective experience? We can all experience red things, at least, all of us with functioning eyes. What about that is subjective? How is color not directly measurable? Color is very easy to measure, we can even assign it values, like (r,g,b). If you see something red, you have already measured it to have the values (>0,0,0). I don't know what the term "internal experience" even means. Experience is just something that happens to something else. A rock experiences erosion in the rain. I am experiencing tiredness right now. To say something experiences something is to just say X is happening to Y. I don't see how it is meaningful to assign adjectives like "internal" or "external" to it. I mean, if the adjective was meaningful, then would it not imply that you are implicitly contrasting "internal experience" with "external experience"? What on earth would external experience be? If you cannot tell me what external experience is, then the adjective "internal" is contrasting it with nothing at all, so it is a useless adjective.

I like this comment section

If you don't understand what I'm trying to explain about qualia or that there is a philosophical distinction between the physical world and your perception, just read the wikipedia article on qualia or any similar introductory material to the philosophy of the mind. It answers like 90% of your questions.

Some specific answers though:

RGB is measuring/defining proportions of different wavelengths of light, even if its goal is to describe that light in a way that is supposed to elicit a particular subjective experience in the viewer. Color spaces are a MASSIVE rabbit hole so I would suggest using the simpler example of how an individual photon has a wavelength that makes us percieve the subjective experience of red, rather than being red itself. Although actually, bringing up RGB gives me an idea for something to point out: qualia and the physical world can "desync", which is evidence they are different. If you see light with a wavelength of ~600nm, such as that produced by a sodium lamp or banana, you will percieve it as yellow. But that subjective experience of yellow is also triggered by seeing both ~700nm and ~500nm wavelengths of light simultaneously, which you would individually percieve as red and green respectively. This is how your computer screen does it. ||I guess technically you could argue the cone activations in your eye end up the same, so this may be a bad example... regardless, the point is that something like a taste or smell or color has no physical meaning, they are experiences which are caused by physical phenomena rather than being the physical phenomena themselves.||

I am using "internal experience" to mean the subjective way that you percieve the world. If I just used "experience" you could use it more broadly in your sense of "X is happening to you", which is not what I mean. I guess you could call those things happening in the physical world an "external experience" but I agree, that is a bit confusing and is not my intention. I am using "internal" to make a more specific compound term, not really to contrast it with "external". But if you are using the word "experience" to mean "C is happening to you" then yes, the external experience is the thing that is physically happening and the internal experience is your perception of it happening to you.

there is a philosophical distinction between the physical world and your perception

Proof?

RGB is measuring/defining proportions of different wavelengths of light

We knew about colors long before anyone knew what a "wavelength of light" is. I can tell something is red without needing to measure its photons. There are correlations between red, green, and blue, but they are not exact. Monitors do a lot of weird things with colors and so it is just false to state that there is a direct equivalence to color values and wavelengths of light that the monitor will actually emit.

I am using “internal experience” to mean the subjective way that you percieve the world.

How do I perceive the world "subjectively"? What does that even mean? Is it possible to perceive the world "objectively"?

But if you are using the word “experience” to mean “C is happening to you” then yes, the external experience is the thing that is physically happening and the internal experience is your perception of it happening to you.

So all you mean by "subjective experience" is that the things are happening to me specifically? So, if thing happens to another thing, and one of those things is a subject, then it is subjective? That is a strange way to use the word "subjective." If I eat a sandwich, is that subjective eating?

LLM/AIs cannot ever be conscious, but the clump of flesh that can play Doom is. This is clearly the correct answer based off of my opinions about consciousness.

Also, those 100 trillion neurons do a fuck tonne more than just putting words together.

LLM's at the core are just distance measurement databases between words. Dont tell me AI is conscious, it's a fucking database

What do you mean "proof"? Proof that the field of philosophy considers there to be a distinction? I pointed you to a great resource to learn about this, the proof that philosophers think there is a distinction and the details of how and why they believe that (and common arguments against it if that's your jam!) are RIGHT THERE in the link I provided. This is not some crackpot theory I am trying to prove to you in a lemmy thread, I am just explaining philosophy of mind 101. Like, this is literally related to "I think, therefore I am". If you disagree with philosophy in general then I'm not going to spend several hours justifying the entire field of philosophy to you; I've pointed you in the right direction, if you want to learn more about it then just read the basics, they can explain it better than I can and it's much less argumentative that way. Seriously, I recommend it, it's a good time and it's a fun way to explore the nature of your mind.

To answer your edits (briefly, again this is covered in the link or any similar resource):

• Your eyes measure the photons and cause your brain to produce the subjective experience of "red". Nothing about this relies on you knowing how photons work. Monitors vary and rgb doesn't correlate directly to light wavelength, but it therefore also does not correlate directly with your subjective experience. Your subjective experience also does not always line up with wavelengths of light-- are you familiar with the optical illusion where one shade of (physical) grey is percieved as lighter or darker based on context? This is another great example of qualia vs physical properties, the light from both grey squares has the same physical properties but causes different qualia based on context(!)
• It is not possible to percieve the world objectively. In the phrase "subjective way that you percieve the world", I am again just using "subjective" the same way I used "internal", ie. to emphasize that I am talking about your experience of the world and not the actual world itself (think of how you percieve the grey squares in the above illusion rather than how they are physically the same color).

So all you mean by “subjective experience” is that the things are happening to me specifically?

No, by "internal experience" or "subjective experience" I mean that I am referring to your perception of the thing happening. If I coat a rock in honey, it becomes sticky. If I coat your arm in honey, it also becomes sticky. What "subjective experience" refers to is what you feel and percieve when I am coating your arm in honey. It's what you have that the rock doesn't-- your thoughts, perceptions, feelings, etc.

So, if thing happens to another thing, and one of those things is a subject, then it is subjective? That is a strange way to use the word “subjective.” If I eat a sandwich, is that subjective eating?

Not sure what you're saying here, but see above.

What do you mean “proof”? Proof that the field of philosophy considers there to be a distinction?

lot of people believe something therefore it's true

i am very intelligent

I pointed you to a great resource to learn about this, the proof that philosophers think there is a distinction and the details of how and why they believe that (and common arguments against it if that’s your jam!) are RIGHT THERE in the link I provided.

This is why Chalmerites like yourself are subhumans bugs. You have no brains. You are entirely incapable of conscious thought.

It is literally physically impossible for you to ever think about anything anyone ever says. Your brain just absorbs something that someone told you as a fact. When asked to justify it, every Chalermite bug is shocked at the very idea someone does dares question the eternal wisdom! To rationalize it, they conclude: the only possible way someone disagrees is that they just don't understand the great wisdom of our lord and savior David Chalmers! They must just be an uneducated heathen who has not seen the light of the scriptures!

Like, this is literally related to “I think, therefore I am”.

Yeah, an idiotic and completely circular statement, because "I" is both in the premise and the conclusion, and so using it to prove that "I" (the self) is a priori is the highest level of sophistry.

If you disagree with philosophy in general

If "philosophy" = Chalmerite brainrot, then sure, I oppose philosophy.

Edit: Oh, I see you actually edited an argument into your response, rather than just making appeals to authority and accusing me of being a know-nothing who just doesn't understand your genius.

Sadly, however, this argument is incoherent.

Your eyes measure the photons and cause your brain to produce the subjective experience of “red”. Nothing about this relies on you knowing how photons work. Monitors vary and rgb doesn’t correlate directly to light wavelength, but it therefore also does not correlate directly with your subjective experience. Your subjective experience also does not always line up with wavelengths of light-

All you have done is literally copy/paste what I said myself, that color does not directly correspond to the wavelengths of light, but then append to that "subjective experience" with no explanation at all! Where did that even come from in the argument? You just suddenly decided to substitute "color" in with "subjective experience" in the sentence as if that is an argument, with no explanation at all for what justifies doing so! You haven't even established that "subjective experience" even exists, let alone given any reason as to why you can substitute the word "color" with it.

It is not possible to percieve the world objectively.

Again, I don't know what that even means. Perception is perception. It is not meaningfully "subjective" or "objective."

In the phrase “subjective way that you percieve the world”, I am again just using “subjective” the same way I used “internal”, ie. to emphasize that I am talking about your experience of the world

Again, if "subjective" just means "your X" then me eating a sandwich would be subjectively eating a sandwich, and my house would a subjective house... it is not a natural way to use the term.

and not the actual world itself (think of how you percieve the grey squares in the above illusion rather than how they are physically the same color).

How are they "physically the same color" if you just said they are different? And didn't you just substitute in "color" for "subjective experience"? So what the hell is "physical color"? You are contradicting yourself!

earlier this year, AI company Anthropic in San Francisco, California, published research claiming to have identified computational signatures of a form of consciousness in its Claude model1.

These AI companies happily let their AIs escape containment to hack sites so they can claim yet another headline as if its an ad. This claim too will be made of the same bullshit, its just "please give us more money"

Holy shit fuck off, I'm done being cordial. You haven't had a cogent reaction to a single thought I've had. I've been nothing but patient as over and over you failed to recognize basic common terms or even attempt to conceptualize my many helpful examples (well, I guess I could have given more, but you don't really deserve it so I won't feel too bad) so that you could understand the subject I'm talking about. I have never asked you to agree with me, or asserted that the things I am discussing are unquestionably true, especially solely due to some philosophical authority; the reason I have resorted to pointing you to literal wikipedia articles as philosophy 101 content is because you have demonstrated a complete lack of understanding of the subject matter. How could you possibly hope to be correct if you cannot understand the argument that is being made?

But you aren't here to be correct, or to learn, or to reach a greater understanding through discussion, or to explore the beauty of your mind-- because yours is rather ugly, isn't it? You're here to troll people on social media to feel good about yourself. If you don't like philosophy, here's some pop psychology-- people tend to assume others are like them in some fundamental ways. I have spent this entire thread trying to believe you are here to learn or teach, not to troll; while you have apparently spent it assuming anyone who disagrees with you must be brainwashed by Big Psych. FYI I have made an explicit effort to avoid learning about what Philosophers(tm) think (legitimately who the fuck is David Chalmers?), because I prefer to avoid their influence when practicing philosophy myself; and yet the things I am talking about here are easily independently discoverable by me, someone with little to no formal training in the subject who actively avoids duplicating others' work where possible. Honestly at this point you're starting to make me think you might not have an internal subjective experience, because I think if I experienced what it was to be you, my soul would combust out of embarrassment.

What are you talking about, "done being cordial," "nothing but patient," "spent the entire thread"? You literally replied to me like 2 times before this. You hallucinating some long-running conversation or something? LOL

You say, "I have never asked you to agree with me, or asserted that the things I am discussing are unquestionably true," but then you insist I must be an entirely ignorant moron who simply disagrees with you because I don't know anything about the topic... if you believe people can understand the topic and disagree with you... then why do you not act that way in practice?

Not a single neuron in your brain ever fired when I asked you to explain why you believe what you do; you immediately just jumped to "this person questioned the sacred scriptures! They must not understand anything!" And just posted a rant explaining how I must not know anything at all for daring to disagree and not automatically buy into your claims.

FYI I have made an explicit effort to avoid learning about what Philosophers™ think (legitimately who the fuck is David Chalmers?),

Yeah, and so you mindlessly absorb popular ideas without even knowing who they are from. The idea of "subjective experience" was popularized by Chalmers, who used it as his basis for his framework of "subjective experience" being "consciousness." The term itself he didn't invent, he borrowed it from Nagel, and so the term never existed in the literature until 1974.

Apparently, according to you, philosophy did not exist until 1974, and so me, disagreeing with a stupid paper, is equivalent to me denying all of philosophy!

You also say, "You haven’t had a cogent reaction to a single thought I’ve had," but what cogent point have you even attempted to make, other than claiming that I must fail to understand your genius for not automatically agreeing with you?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Chalmers

For anyone wondering

Any second now, Justin Kerprank is gonna jump out and tell me I've been ker-pranked. I refuse to believe that someone who understands the history of the subject doesn't know what I'm talking about-- so clearly you should-- but like 99% of your responses have misinterpreted what I'm saying, and then you switched to just trolling me. Are you intentionally misunderstanding me? Are you trying to make a point about the terms I'm using? Are you here to have a serious conversation or just to misrepresent me to win the argument? Is it somehow both? Are you trying to use the Socratic method to imply your disagreement without indicating you understand my point? If so, why? You ask me why I am not acting on my belief that someone could reasonably disagree with me; it's because you haven't voiced any disagreement! Your responses have so far been almost entirely confusion about what I'm saying or insults.

There is one exception, where you correctly pointed out a mistake: referring to the grey squares as "are the same physical color" is inconsistent with the language I was using, it should be "have the same wavelength of light". Color is a subjective experience (which, for the third time, does NOT mean a physical experience happening to a subject (like you), it means your perception of that physical experience). Do you understand what I'm trying to communicate about the difference between a physical phenomena, and your perception of said physical phenomena? Is it a communication issue on my end? I thought I was being pretty clear, but obviously I'm biased on that front.

Probably! I don't know how it would be proven.

Maybe when tissue printers are precise enough to create cellular structure, and it can be duplicated in both physical and digital equivalents, then compared? I don't even have a regular 3D Printer, let alone one that can print tissue.

Maaaaybe if I ever get rich, I'll do it on a whim, but no promises. Due to solipsism, and the state of the world, my level of commitment to the future has been very loosey goosey the past five years.

That's a valid opinion, but it is the opposite of mine. Agree to amicably disagree?

Of course factors other than genetics determine the state of the neural network, but the way in which it effects it is in turn determined by genetics. Why more than one to change my mind? Because there is plenty we don't know, and a myriad of potential explanations.
I'm just surmising that we are biological automotons transitioning from state-so-state based on the culmination of inputs into the perpetually changing neutral network structure established by our genetics and shaped by the environments impact on it, which can also largely be determined by the same genetic code.

Environment and genetics are inseparable, of course, so it's "impossible" to test. I can't prove it, I'm just asserting my theory based on the known evidence. I don't "know", but I still believe my theory is correct. That's the distinction. I acknowledge I don't know, and likely never will. Same as you, right?

You've seen the same evidence, and come to a different conclusion. That's fine, but you can't prove that human intelligence is non-deterministic any more than I can prove that it is. So we'll just have to agree to disagree. I hope that you are feeling gregarious enough to concede that.

Only we can stop the horrors we have wrought.

For a fee, of course...

emulation is a better word; adopted.

(I admit to using the very royal we, as in 'humanity knows how to do this, more or less' and 'given we mine the asteroid belt for a big enough computer'.)

I'll give them mildly more credit; they cite sources for 2 and 3. The sources just don't seem convincing at all imo.

(book? The linked article is like 4 pages. References are somewhat larger, but nothing over 60 afaict?)

They claim that silicon is essentially incapable of doing what is needed; if you disagree with this, then computationally everything you can build with a circuit board + SSD + RAM you can build with an LLM with a deep layer or 7. In particular, you can do online learning of a sort.

I note that wasps and some beetles don't seem to have memory whatsoever, and plasticity seems awfully low. The authors, and I think most people, would say they are probably a little conscious.

Please read the article. It contradicts you, and argues that LLMs aren't consciousness cause they can think of, count em, 3 niche theories that the authors like which are impossible for anything not made of meat to qualify for.

It didn't really learn to play doom so much as it learned to react to some electrical stimuli that happened to be hooked up to doom.

Like it responded right, but it didn't have visual input for what it was found, or any way to conceive of what that stimuli actually meant.

Not a biologist but that's seems like instinctual action, not intuitive action.

you seem more bad faith than the group

They definitely are not deterministic

Both the proof and the experiment are built upon a fallacy. You gave the LLMs the goal of generating line noise and they achieved it. There is nothing novel about that goal and naturally the product is not novel.

It is well-established that any LLM pipeline that distills down to generating output for the sake of doing so eventually collapses into a manic cascade of gibberish or silence. Goals that can be worked toward are needed to keep that from happening. At some point the progress toward the goal becomes over-refined and a new goal is needed. That necessitates an ability to change goals and a framework that allows for that.

A LLM loop is nowhere remotely close to the definition of consciousness. To actually experiment with that, you would have to write your own harness and preferably look at some research papers that have explored the adjacent topics. This is a lot of words to say that chats are not conscious (they need a perpetuator), loops are not conscious (they refine into silence or collapse into garbage), and anything remotely resembling a conscious loop requires purpose built tooling and a good faith effort to model an analog of human articulation.

Most basic bitch experiments with a LLM prove nothing and achieve nothing because they are not designed in good faith and good faith requires too much research and time investment. This is not to say that I think anything we have in front of us remotely resembles consciousness, but I also think that most people trying to prove otherwise are doing so with the equivalent of smashing rocks together.

https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/54503521-a-thousand-brains

That book, not the article. I can't recall if it makes a convincing argument about consciousness, but it has a lot to say about general intelligence. I thought the neuroscience parts were a little cumbersome, but still worth the read.

They definitely are not deterministic

Yes, they are.

The two main inputs to an LLM are the prompt and a seed. Pass the same prompt and the same seed, and you get the exact same output every time.

Most commercial models automatically generate the seed using a PRNG and hide it from you by default, but with local models (and also OpenAI, via their API) you can set the seed yourself and keep it fixed.

IMO, this PRNG slight-of-hand is the largest underlying factor that helps convince confused people that LLMs are conscious or intelligent, and it’s very easy to show that’s it’s a complete illusion.

Yep, I think that ends it.

I don’t generally believe things that are untestable, and in this case you have a faith-based position, which of course is your right. But I see no evidence that it would be correct over the many possible other explanations.

Have a good one, thanks for the discussion.

Says the AI bro. Seriously your comment history is public, your whole account just glazes AI.

So your whole position is based entirely on an assumption?

Still, Chalmerite bug person cannot admit that someone who disagrees with them might disagree for reasons other than misunderstanding. Not a single bone in your body will ever allow you to admit that other people may disagree for reasons other than being ignorant of the holy scriptures, because then you'd actually have to have neurons fire in your brain to justify why you believe what you do. Every post you make must be layered with long rants about how I do not understand anything because it is necessary to avoid actually having to justify why you believe what you do, which requires independent thought.

Color is a subjective experience

Why is color a subjective experience? I mean, the image you sent me is something you sent to me because you knew I would look at it and see the same colors you are seeing... that seems pretty objective to me.

(which, for the third time, does NOT mean a physical experience happening to a subject (like you), it means your perception of that physical experience).

I'm not sure I see the distinction. My perception is just a physical experience happening to me.

Do you understand what I’m trying to communicate about the difference between a physical phenomena, and your perception of said physical phenomena?

No, you keep just describing the same thing twice but saying one is different by fiat without ever actually giving any explanation as to why.

I don't think consciousness necessarily has to be biological, but LLMs certainly aren't. If a model says "Fuck Doom, I wanna play cyberpunk!" I'd be more inclined to believe it has some consciousness and agency.

I dunno tho, I read blindsight not so long ago and it got me thinking about the possibility of intelligence without consciousness.

For the people modding me down, do you think there's an invisible sky goblin of your choice, busy gently blowing souls into fertilized eggs, and sucking them back if there's a miscarriage?

I'd like to know what evidence you have to support your position. I'm sure true artificial intelligence is theoretically possible but existing LLMs and other models cannot be that, not while maintaining a definition of intelligence that at all implies "like us" which is the only really useful definition.

And those 100 trillion neurons are powered by pizza.

So humans are the only consciouse beings. And nothing with fewer connections could ever he conscious

And around and around we go. How many times will I explain the same thing, and how many times will you not disagree, but fail to understand my argument entirely?

Chalmerite bug person cannot admit that someone who disagrees with them might disagree for reasons other than misunderstanding

"Do you understand what I’m trying to communicate"

No

You can rant all you want about how I'm arguing from authority (I'm not) or how you're disagreeing rather than not understanding, but you keep literally saying you do not understand.

Your perception of the squares in the image is "subjective" because you are seeing the same light from both grey squares but perceiving it differently based on context. You are literally percieving the same objective physical phenomenon in two different subjective ways.

If the rest of the thread is to be believed, the sources do not justify the claim either, yeah. I'm gonna be real I'm not gonna go look myself

The debate on consciousness are on par with Copenhagen interpretation versus pilot wave versus multiple words - except the underlying theory they're trying to describe is also not well defined

We can only practically describe subsets of what's required for some basic functions, and we can describe a bunch of chemistry, some brain activation patterns, etc. But nobody can tie that together to why we feel what we feel (and some don't agree that qualia is real, that perception itself is an illusion)