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
[–] 2 points 1 week ago (8 children)

Also an LLM only produces output when it is prompted to do so. Between prompts it's not sitting there - waiting, wondering about the meaning of life, getting bored - until you prompt it again. It's basically dead.

I like to compare llms to a Galton Board. Instead of the regular layout of pins someone added or removed pins so the marbles on the bottom fall into nice to look patterns.

Galton Board

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 1 week ago (2 children)

    Also an LLM only produces output when it is prompted to do so.

    Why is this a good measure of consciousness?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 6 days ago (1 child)

    If continuity isn't relevant for qualia, then LLMs could have perpetually incomplete perception like the edge of the image drawn on a CRT screen when captured at high frame rates. You never see a complete picture even if it's technically represented.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 2 points 1 week ago* (last edited 6 days ago) (4 children)

    There's nothing stopping someone from wiring a camera, sensors, and motivators to a collection of neural networks, and have one parent neural network control them all. That would approximate the hemispheres of our brains.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 week ago (3 children)

    It would not come remotely close to approximating our brains, in any way. This exhibits a lack of understanding of both LLMs and how our brains function.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 1 week ago (2 children)

    That's a valid opinion, but it is the opposite of mine. Agree to amicably disagree?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 week ago (1 child)

    I'd like to know what evidence you have to support your position. I'm sure true artificial intelligence is theoretically possible but existing LLMs and other models cannot be that, not while maintaining a definition of intelligence that at all implies "like us" which is the only really useful definition.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 0 points 6 days ago* (last edited 6 days ago)

    Just insight and intuition gained from twelve years of post-graduate study at Universities, including a MSc in Machine Learning.

    I'm not sure "like us" is something that is quantifiable. I'm of the belief that treating we meat automatons as anything special is hubris. We're finite state machines, acting on information input from our senses, making decisions, and outputting information in the form of activating biological apparatus. Swap physical for digital, and LLMs are indeed capable of aping all of our behavior.

  • source
  • parent