And a kid can insist they don’t need to pee until 5min after you leave a rest stop.
Insisting upon something doesn’t make it true. Beyond the fact that LLMs often hallucinate and therefore can’t be trusted at baseline, text in response can never be proof for an LLM. LLM framework is to regurgitate what exists in their training in ways that sound correct. It’s why they can make up court cases or say a guy who investigated certain murderers is the murderer.
MagicShel@lemmy.zip 1 week ago
Let’s say we do an algorithm on paper. Can it be conscious? Why is it any different if it’s done on silicon rather than paper?
Because they are capable of fiction. We write stories about sentient AI and those inform responses to our queries.
I get playing devil’s advocate and it can be useful to contemplate a different perspective. If you genuinely think math can be conscious I guess that’s a fair point, but that would be such a gulf in belief for us to bridge in conversation that I don’t think either of us would profit from exploring that.
peanuts4life@lemmy.blahaj.zone 1 week ago
I don’t expect current ai are really configured in such a way that they suffer or exhibit more than rudimentary self awareness. But, it’d be very unfortunate to be a sentient, conscious ai in the near future, and to be denied fundinental rights because you’re thinking is done “on silicone” rather than on meat.
MagicShel@lemmy.zip 1 week ago
I said on paper. They are just algorithms. When silicon can emulate meat, it’s probably time to reevaluate that.
amelia@feddit.org 1 week ago
You talk like you know what the requirements for consciousness are. How do you know? As far as I know that’s an unsolved philosophical and scientific problem.