Hacker News Reader

> "Could a being capable of perpetrating such a thought really be unconscious?" is the same as proclaiming "AI is conscious"

The former clearly implies the latter, since the question is asked in an incredulous tone and presupposes that an LLM "perpetrates thought".

A neutral way of phrasing that question would be something like, "Are there mechanisms that would allow an entity without consciousness to generate such outputs?"

View on HN

It is as (or more) common for that type of construct to be used to set up tension for subsequent exploration. "Can light really be both particles and waves?"

I also find it interesting that the "Dawkins is clueless" argument requires inconsistently reading questions as statements; the initial question is "obviously" to be read in the affirmative and this one (presumably just as obviously) in the negative.

The counter, that he's actually trying to get people to think about an interesting nest of questions is less tortured: they are actual questions.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com