150
Three reasons why "AI" is not conscious and perhaps never will be (www.nature.com)
submitted 6 days ago by to c/technology@lemmy.world
236 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

Artificial-intelligence systems such as large language models (LLMs) can exhibit behaviour that seems strikingly intelligent. This has led many people, including some experts, to wonder whether these systems could have some form of consciousness — the capacity for subjective experience. However, we think that existing AI systems are not conscious, and that, along current trajectories of development, they are not likely to become conscious. Greater clarity about whether AI could become consciousness will be crucial as society grapples with the challenges posed by this increasingly powerful technology.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 12 points 6 days ago (3 children)

That's because there's different levels of such a thing. Way too many people use the term "sentient" (even me) and yet that's not even what AGI is aiming for. "Sapient" is the right word. And I doubt there's solid consensus on what and how it occurs within the fields of experts.

But I'm not an expert, so I wouldn't pretend to know. I have seen debates between people who do know more, and the fact there's debates concludes it's not settled at all.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [–] 4 points 6 days ago (2 children)

    People debate about the earth being flat, not a good metric to determined what is "settled"

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 3 points 4 days ago

    The debate on consciousness are on par with Copenhagen interpretation versus pilot wave versus multiple words - except the underlying theory they're trying to describe is also not well defined

    We can only practically describe subsets of what's required for some basic functions, and we can describe a bunch of chemistry, some brain activation patterns, etc. But nobody can tie that together to why we feel what we feel (and some don't agree that qualia is real, that perception itself is an illusion)

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 1 point 4 days ago

    I don't think there are debates about that. There's whatever they say, and there's the few that make content by saying, "okay, let's take a deep breath and pretend there's anything to work with, and go from there".

    Actual modern flat Earth was a spoof, I believe, but enough people with low science education and some religion ran with it as having anything worthwhile. And there's the few that don't believe it but feed off those others, keeping it going.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent