Hacker News Reader

Comment by ctoth | Hacker News Reader

> A conscious textual agent would need something like a unified narrative environment with real feedback: symbols that maintain identity over time, a stable substrate where “being someone” is definable, the ability to form and test a hypothesis, and experience the consequences.

So like a Claude Code session? The code persists as symbols with stable identity. The tests provide direct feedback. Claude tracks what it wrote versus what I changed - it needs identity to distinguish its actions from mine. It forms hypotheses about what will fix the failing tests, implements them, and immediately experiences whether it was right or wrong.

The terminal environment gives it exactly the "stable substrate where 'being someone' is definable" you're asking for.

We missing anything?

View on HN

I tend to look at consciousness as a spectrum. And when we reduce it to a binary (is it conscious?), we're actually asking whether it meets some minimum threshold of whatever the smallest creature you have empathy for is.

So yeah, Claude Code is more conscious than raw GPT. And both probably less than my dog.

Okay, you're right. There is a world, and some hypotheses, and some falsifiability.

But how rich is this world?

Does this world progress without direct action from another entity? Can the agent in this case form hypotheses and test them without intervention? Can the agent form their own goals and move towards them? Does the agent have agency, or is it simply responding to inputs?

If the world doesn’t develop and change on its own, and the agent can’t act independently, is it really an inhabited world? Or just a controlled workspace?

If you accept the premise that the consciousness is computable then pausing the computation can't be observed by the consciousness. So the world being a controlled workspace in my eyes doesn't contradict a consciousness existing?

I agree, evaluation of consciousness is another problem entirely.

However, the point I'm making is that even assuming an agent/thing is capable of achieving consciousness, it would have to have a suitably complex environment and the capability of forming an independent feedback loop with that environment to even begin to display conscious capability.

If the agent/thing is capable of achieving consciousness but is not in a suitable environment, then we'd likely never see it doing things that resemble consciousness as we understand it. Which is something we have seen occur in the real world many times.

I also agree. GP wrote: "It's a fragmented, discontinuous series of words and tokens" which poses an interesting visual. Perhaps there is something like a proto-consciousness while the LLM is executing and determining the next token. But it would not experience time, would be unaware of every other token outside of its context, and it fades away as soon as a new instance takes its place.

Maybe it could be a very abstract, fleeting, and 1-dimensional consciousness (text, but no time). But I feel even that is a stretch when thinking about the energy flowing through gates in a GPU for some time. Maybe it's 1 order above whatever consciousness a rock or a star might have. Actually I take that back - a star has far more matter and dynamicism than an H100, so the star is probably more conscious.

The fact that it's a hugely complicated yet nevertheless completely abstract machine of pure logic which isn't running in the thought experiment's universe of pure text but within our phenomenally complex universe of meat and stuff riddled with paradoxes.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com