249
A Microsoft researcher built a goat-powered LLM in Age of Empires II to prove it's not sentient
(www.xda-developers.com)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 22 Jun 2026
249 points (93.1% liked)
Technology
85745 readers
4154 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related news or articles.
- Be excellent to each other!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
- Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.
Approved Bots
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
Except we have quala, consciousness. That's a well recognised fact. How do you model something we cannot explain?
So yeah there are "indications" we cannot do it. Maybe we can and emerging properties is the way to go, but it might also not be that.
Do you believe we can?
Edit: the chinese room is a farce IMO, and won't push anything either way.
Many abilities and properties we thought to be exclusive to human consciousness were later proven in animals. Such as the capacity for empathy, thinking ahead, and recognizing yourself in a mirror.
Does that mean animals are partially conscious? Or can we accept that the definition is fuzzy at best, making this a moving target?
That makes it probable I guess, but it absolutely does not prove it. We cannot prove humans are conscious (except ourselves).
I was clearly asking from the position of recognising consciousness in other humans. Or is that not your position?
Solipsism is pointless and boring. By that logic, nothing at all can be proven or disproven.
I personally suppose humans all (or 99%+, there are always statistical outliers) have a consciousness actually, but that doesn't mean I can use it as a fact when making an argument. For example, if you do use it as a fact, then why doesn't monkeys have a consciousness, pigs, cats, muskitoes, trees, planks, too, etc etc etc.
Math is based on the idea that 1+1=2 and you take that as granted. I can live with that, it seems reasonable. All humans have a consciousness? Not accepting that if you infer that just because a machine can mimic a human brain, it thus also will have even the possibility to have a consciousness.
Do you think a machine can have a quala, the experience we "experience" because we have a consciousness?
This was your position: "we have 'quala' (consciousness)" in regards to humans. That's what I've challenged in my reply.
Now you've wildly moved the goalposts twice in just two comments. The first (solipsism) I've rejected, but gave you the benefit of the doubt that you just needed a reminder on your own position.
Now you did it again. I'm not playing this game. Stick to a point, anything else is just rudely wasting the time of people actually interested in having a good-faith exchange of ideas.
Dude where did I say we (humans) have quala?
Nowhere.
I do think most of us do, but that there is absolutely no real proof of it.
Now who's moving the goalpost with that eh.
Do feel free to stop wasting my time anytime you like.
https://vger.to/lemmy.dbzer0.com/comment/26710154
Followed up with:
So yeah I think humans have it, but we cannot prove anyone else than ourselves do.
I don't have to address what other things you also said. I challenged that point, which you believe to be true, with relevant interesting facts.
If you don't want to defend a thing you said, it's much less obvious and embarrassing to just stop responding.
Lol that's not how you argue in good faith, but sure let's stop this sterile pissing contest.
Bye.