"you can solve NS without thinking."
What?!
The constant goalpost moving and redefining of "thinking" and "intelligence" is simply unbelievable at this point
What?!
The constant goalpost moving and redefining of "thinking" and "intelligence" is simply unbelievable at this point
intelligence and thinking are efforts to describe consciousness.
perhaps intelligence became a term used to describe something 'capable'. people market 'intelligent thermostats'.
llms are not conscious.
If someone's opinion is illogical and clearly incorrect (not based in facts or in reality) it is not valid and doesn't not have to be given any serious consideration in a disagreement. Personal opinions are subordinate to facts and reality.
in english: doing advanced mathmatics does not create thoughts or feelings.
or awareness of one's own existence.
it does not create a 'self' able to deduce a priori the existence of oneself or the external world.
or qualia.
again in english: there is nothing it is like to be an llm.
someone who thinks llms are conscious is probably a panpsychist. i don't think they have the features of consciousness defined even by functionalism.
here is one fairly famous thought experiment. mary lives in a black and white room. but she knows everything about color. in fact she predicts it so accurately nobody can tell the difference. she steps outside into the world of color. in the world where llms are conscious, she already knew color, so she experienced color, so there is nothing new it is like to see it.
Second, there is no common definition of thinking that requires consciousness as a prerequisite (that seems to be a false/invalid statement you're making to try to gloss over accepted definitions for thinking/intelligence that describe/fit AI agents well).
And third, if we can't prove consciousness even in animal species close to humans (or even other humans) in cognitive abilities, then you cannot in good faith (being honest about what we know or don't know empirically) say that an LLM Is not conscious (and the same goes for an LLM thinking or having intelligence).
It is more likely that humans made up a term (consciousness) to try to separate human intellect from that of other animals (for veiled religious and mystical reasons, along with concepts like "the soul") and now people are falling back into that flawed definition in new quasi-religious debates around AI (like the debate around evolution previously) that challenge our deeply held (but flawed) beliefs/opinions around our understanding of our own abilities and our incessant need to feel special/supreme in the universe so we don't have to come to terms with hard realities and nuanced understandings about the reality in which we live.
I think you need to read more about this subject before presenting your unsupported intuitions as fact.
about my unawareness of the body of philosophical writing and lack of reading in the subject, strangely i have a degree in philosophy and indeed 1:1 in the philosophy of mind.
so i guess this is one of those "unsupported intuitions".
academic philosophy is not practical in ML and on top of that this is a web forum. it is my unsupported opinion that 99% of papers in the philosophy of mind published after 2000 are 100% bullshit.
if you need my justification for no phenomenology, it is valid to assume in the absence of falsifiability the most simple, practical and intuitive position.
the hard problem is something that is currently pointless as is searle, dennett, kripke, goldman et al. and especially pointless is stuart russell on asi.
they don't meet the standard of knowledge required for decisions.