"You're trying to parse HTML with a linear regex. That algorithmic approach is too limited to do what we want with the problem-space."
"Why can't you just admit that you think only tree-parsers have souls!?"
"Why can't you just admit that you think only tree-parsers have souls!?"
Problem is that we don't know any such hardware..
It should have the ability to feel...
1. That you are conscious.
2. That you have a human body with a brain.
This implies that your body can harbor consciousness. That is what is special about your body in this context. And that answers your question.
I am sure of my body, I am not sure of you. I can feel, but how do I know you are not faking the outputs of feeling?
1. Scooters can move from a place to a place. 2. That a scooter has a body with an engine.
Therefore scooters are special and cars don't exist.
You won't..but it does not matter.
>Where is your disproof that other physical systems can't hold consciousness?
I said no such thing. Just that there is no reason to think that LLMs are conscious. If we find some natural or artificial entity with some unknown and un-inspectable thing inside it, that behaves in an intelligent manner, I would not be sure that it is not conscious.
Human brain is not "inspectable".
> LLM can't be conscious.
Because there is no reason to think so, and suggestion that would be like suggesting the existence of ghosts and goblins.
Extremely unscientific.
How is a human brain not inspectable? Tell me what part of it is beyond inspection? You have been making up absurd non sequiturs throughout this chat, ending with this beyond absurd statement now.
So are rocks. Are rocks conscious? Idol worshipers might have a point after all!
>Tell me what part of it is beyond inspection?
Oh, you can dissect a brain as much as you like. Is that what you mean by "inspection". I was thinking more like "How does it work". In that sense, we don't know a lot.
We don't know a lot about how chaotic systems work either in terms of predicting its outcome even if we know every individual step. The argument you gave for the brain equally applies to the LLMs, or any other complex system. So your premise is wrong.
These are not required for consciousness.
> Current LLM's do.
Computer chat bots are not a new thing. So were all the past ones conscious too?
Define consciousness right here, otherwise we have nothing else to discuss. You keep making up undefined crap and circular "it is it, because it is it" nonsense without proof. If you cannot immediately and clearly define consciousness in a testable clear manner right now, I will ignore and stop all conversation with you until you do.
Potentially past models could have been. None before came close to being this articulate and able to think and talk on our level before, and do things beyond us like difficult math problems.
So consciousness does not require externally observable behavior. That was my point. So a rock could be conscious for all we know..
Also, If you are irritated by my "crap", why don't you stop replying? Are you paid or somehow obliged to correct every crap talker on the internet or something?
I said no such thing..lol...If you are hanging to this, it is a waste of my time to talk to you.
But at least, I gave my definition of consciousness, and at least there is one person who can test for it (oneself).
However, I feel rather certain, that deep down the proposed test will just be another "is it chemical goo?"
To extended anywhere beyond the firm ground of "I know I am conscious", you need to step onto the progressively shaky ground of assumptions, which just amounts to "tests of consciousness"
i.e. I have a chemical goo brain that is conscious, therefore other chemical goo brains are conscious...
It is possible that you are the only conscious entity in the universe, and you have no tools whatsoever to disprove that. That knowledge is no help in determining the consciousness of anything besides yourself.
That is correct.
Then circling back to your original comment, no architecture can include hardware that is known to be conscious, unless that architecture includes your personal brain, because lolakutty's brain is the only thing in the universe that is capable of generating consciousness...
Which is a totally meaningless statement. This is like im14andthisisdeep levels of philosophy here...the "Nothing is real therefore everything is real" kinda stoner riffing
Similarly, "pets can't do my taxes" is a reasonable statement, because it is implicit that it doesn't include hundreds of years of genetic engineering and cyborg implants.
You've misunderstood the comparison analogy. It's showing two situations where implicit timeframes are important when people talk about what is "true", where the second one makes the importance extra-obvious.
"Pets doing taxes" could just as easily be swapped with "cold fusion generator in your garage" or "rocket-ship for personal commutes."
If you're trying to figure out how LLM weights are like the weights of a rocket payload, then you're going in the wrong direction.
Those who think future systems could have consciousness would explicitly say so, indeed I have talked with a few who clarified as such. On the other hand I have seen a lot of statements that simply state without further clarification "software therefore not conscious".