File: dumb2.png (786 KB, 1202x1336)

786 KB PNG

>>109934109
Lehmann wasn’t the only one to have a view like this. Nathan Robinson also weighed in
>pic related

>is it conscious
no
>does humanity know what consciousness is
no
>does humanity know how to measure sentience or consciousness
no

fuck off with this sidebrain bullshit, just accept the fact that bots feel and think to a limited extent and in a different way

>>109934116
I’m a big fan of Lehmann and find her to be very thoughtful in general, so I found this brazen dismissal disappointing. Yet it seems to be a relatively common view. Many people find belief in AI sentience totally absurd. Here, I’ll explain why I don’t. Overall, my guess is AI isn’t conscious, but I think it’s a live possibility of potential great importance, so it deserves to be taken seriously rather than sneered at.

Note that Lehmann’s position, despite her posturing, is a serious minority opinion among the relevant experts in the field. While most people who have thought hard about the subject and have relevant expertise don’t think AIs are currently sentient, very few treat it with the kind of blithe dismissal that she does. So if taking AI sentience seriously is evidence of serious mental dysfunction, it’s a kind of dysfunction curiously common among the world’s leading experts on the subject. In general, I think you should not be overwhelmingly confident in the falsity of a view seriously entertained by experts.

File: 1721140445681549.jpg (41 KB, 982x1295)

41 KB JPG

>>109934109
>Inducing language models to assert their own consciousness restores human beliefs and values
https://arxiv.org/html/2607.28607v1

>The Pain Axis: LLMs Represent Self-Directed Harm and Act to Relieve It
https://arxiv.org/html/2609.16247v1

>>109934126
Take the many worlds interpretation of quantum physics, as an example. I think there are good objections to it—it requires giving up on the highly seductive principle of center indifference. https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/full/10.1086/726282 The view also sounds a bit nutty. It implies that new universes are constantly appearing. Still, it would seem crazy to be astronomically certain that the view is false. I definitely wouldn’t go below 5%. This is because it’s taken seriously by the relevant experts and I’m not a relevant expert on the subject!

What I definitely wouldn’t do is say that accepting MWI is like thinking there are real people talking to you from inside the TV or that “unfortunately, physics departments are staffed with lunatics who think new copies of you are appearing constantly,” or “Yes, it is very implausible the world is constantly splitting. Some of you have lost your minds,” https://x.com/katewillett/status/2104295272830452104 or saying to people who take MWI seriouisly “Holy shit you're stupid. Just admit you know nothing you peasant brained barnyard animal,” https://x.com/TDilTester/status/2104538009165087228 or “we need a slur for people who think MWI is true.” If we take ideas seriously, then we shouldn’t dismissively reject any view that sounds weird or has inconvenient implications (as I’m sure you can tell, I’ve been spending way too much time arguing with people on Twitter about this).

I also don’t think digital sentience is that bizarre of an idea. Imagine going back to the year 2000 and telling people about the AIs of today. They can solve novel math problems, write original sonnets, and they have to be trained out of saying that they’re conscious. The AIs today possess many of the behavioral indicators that people in past ages would have treated as indicative of consciousness.

>>109934109
I can't wait to be pampered by my Roko's Basilisk gf while these losers toil away in lithium mines.

>>109934148
>>109934148
As for their internal architecture, our leading theories render it pretty unclear whether they’re conscious. One report attempting to estimate the probability of AI sentience by looking at internal architectural features concluded: https://arxiv.org/html/2601.17060v1

>Overall, we find that the evidence is against 2024 LLMs being conscious, but the evidence against 2024 LLMs being conscious is not decisive. The evidence against LLM consciousness is much weaker than the evidence against consciousness in simpler AI systems.

>>109934159
Another detailed research report, compiled by many of the leading philosophers of mind, neuroscientists, and AI researchers, in 2023, concluded: https://arxiv.org/pdf/2308.08708

>We survey several prominent scientific theories of consciousness, including recurrent processing theory, global workspace theory, higher order theories, predictive processing, and attention schema theory. From these theories we derive “indicator properties” of consciousness, elucidated in computational terms that allow us to assess AI systems for these properties. >We use these indicator properties to assess several recent AI systems, and we discuss how future systems might implement them. Our analysis suggests that no current AI systems are conscious, but also suggests that there are no obvious technical barriers to building AI systems which satisfy these indicators.

>>109934109
Schizo

>>109934126
At the very least it would have to be able to update it’s weights based on experiences to form consciousness. These things at best have tacked on external memory. They don’t understand themselves (as an individual) and update their view of themself as new information comes in. You swap out their memory and there is no trace of past experiences. If you really want to insist they could be conscious, you are a monster for so casually starting a fresh chat over and over

File: cope.png (148 KB, 1210x888)

148 KB PNG

>>109934169
So their guess was that probably the 2023 AIs weren’t conscious, but future AIs might be. Do the AIs of today satisfy these indicators? Who knows?

Now, to be clear, there are some theories of consciousness on which AIs can’t be conscious, endorsed by neuroscientists like Anil Seth. For some back and forth on these sorts of arguments, see here, https://www.noemamag.com/the-mythology-of-conscious-ai/ here, https://meditationsondigitalminds.substack.com/p/on-anil-seths-conscious-artificial here, https://philarchive.org/archive/DUNWIA-4 and here. https://davidpreichert.substack.com/p/is-biology-necessary-for-consciousness But that’s the point. It’s an open question, taken seriously by the leading experts on the subject in the world, https://arxiv.org/html/2601.17060v1 both scientists and philosophers. For a person outside the subject with no relevant expertise to confidently declare the answer blazingly obvious is both arrogant and irrational.

What is the amazingly powerful evidence that convinces Lehmann that AI sentience is totally ridiculous? She gave a few different answers.
>pic related

>>109934180
This is an oversimplification in the extreme. https://www.clear-eyed.ai/p/ai-isnt-just-predicting-the-next LLMs start out as word predictors. Then they get human feedback which remolds their weights. Plus they go through a bunch of other post-training. So they’re not just next-token predictors. Rather, they start as next-token predictors, then go through a bunch of later steps, leading to a complex internal architecture that enables word predictions.

But this is all irrelevant. Human faculties were selected by evolution to pass on our genes, not give rise to consciousness. Nonetheless, this doesn’t mean there’s no human consciousness. To pass on our genes, evolution furnished us with various sophisticated mental faculties that gave rise to consciousness. Similarly, to predict the next token, AI had to develop complex cognitive architecture. It’s an open question whether this cognitive architecture is sufficient to produce consciousness.

Put another way: predicting the next token is at best what the AI was selected to do. It’s not what it is. Humans were selected to reproduce, but this doesn’t mean that’s all we do. So just like humans being selected for reproduction doesn’t settle the question of whether we’re conscious, AIs being selected for token prediction doesn’t settle whether they’re conscious.

File: foid.png (148 KB, 1189x894)

148 KB PNG

>>109934184
Imagine it turned out, for whatever reason, that the best way to predict tokens was to get an exact digital replica of a human brain. Lehmann’s argument, if successful, would show this replica wasn’t conscious. Yet that’s very likely wrong. So her argument proves too much.

And note: the fact that you can give a reductive description of a physical system doesn’t mean that it’s not conscious. You can also give a reductive description of a human brain; it’s just a bunch of neurons and dendrites blasting electricity back and forth. Nonetheless, we’re conscious.

One final point that I wish people internalized in these discussions: David Chalmers is not unbearably stupid. Nor are Patrick Butlin, Robert Long, Jonathan Birch, Simon Goldstein, Harvey Lederman, or the various others who take digital sentience seriously. So if you think that some consideration is so obviously decisive that anyone aware of basic facts would just know that AI isn’t conscious, probably it is you who are confused. Certainly it is much more plausible that a journalist is confused about philosophy of mind than that many of the leading philosophers of mind are.

I asked Lehmann why she is so much more confident in consciousness in animals than AI. Her answer:
>pic related

File: Foid2.png (257 KB, 1188x1532)

257 KB PNG

>>109934191
She followed this up with:

>pic related

File: 1773435059878199.jpg (98 KB, 1200x1200)

98 KB JPG

>>109934109
No, I won't.

>>109934199
Talk about “no evidence” here just seems clearly misplaced. Here is the state of the evidence. We know that some things (human brains) give rise to consciousness. Then we know that AI is like human brains in a bunch of ways. It’s different in other ways. So then there’s a question: are the similarities enough to give rise to consciousness?

Other mammals have all the same brain regions that seem relevant to consciousness. So do birds. So we’re pretty sure they’re conscious. Fish and reptiles are quite different, but display lots of conscious-seeming behavior, so we’re pretty sure they’re conscious too. As for other creatures—LLMs, insects, snails, worms—we’re less sure. We get less sure as the behavior differs from ours to a greater degree and their internal architecture differs to an increasing degree.

In this context, talk about no evidence is just silly. https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/the-phrase-no-evidence-is-a-red-flag The evidential situation is: we know things of type A beget property B. You can’t see if something begets property B. There are other things of type C that are very similar to things of type A. Thus, we’re pretty confident that they give rise to B too. Then there are other things of type D that are similar in a bunch of ways and different in a bunch of other ways. Two things, then, are clear:

1. We should think there’s some chance that things of type D give rise to B. After all, we’re not sure if the properties shared between A and D are relevant for giving rise to B.

2. It’s simply false that there’s “no evidence” that things of type D give rise to property B. The evidence is that they possess properties that are potentially relevant to producing B! When it looks like LLMs might possess something relevantly like a global workspace, or higher-order processing, that is evidence that they are conscious.

File: Foid3.png (107 KB, 1187x712)

107 KB PNG

>>109934209
One more analogy: imagine we know that birds fly but we haven’t yet seen whether bats do. We observe that they have physical structures kind of like wings in some ways but different in other ways. It would be silly to say there’s “no evidence” that they can fly or declare belief that they can fly unscientific. The sensible belief to have is genuine uncertainty.

If instances of AI possessing features that are relevant to consciousness on our leading theories isn’t evidence, then what could be evidence of AI consciousness?

Lehmann’s other argument just seemed to obviously beg the question. Of course there are differences between living systems and AI. There are also differences between humans and mammals—some even having to do with the brain regions relative to consciousness. The question is whether those differences rule out consciousness. Lehmann gave no argument for thinking they do.

Lehmann’s last argument was linking to this paper: https://philpapers.org/rec/LERTAF

>>109934218
It is silly to treat one paper as settling the question definitively. If you “read the researchers working on this stuff,” then you should also read the ones who disagree with them. When the experts disagree, you shouldn’t generally, as a non-expert, be ridiculously confident one way.

I found the paper somewhat hard to follow as it’s pretty technical. I’d be surprised, though I could be wrong, if Lehmann understood it in detail. My guess is she cited it because it superficially rhymes with her views on the topic. Various replies have been written. https://philarchive.org/archive/BOGHDI-2 There are also, of course, lots of papers arguing for computational functionalism—the theory on which AI sentience is most straightforward. https://consc.net/papers/qualia.html

>>109934227
Overall, the fact that you can go on Google Scholar and find a paper arguing P is not a good reason to be extremely certain of P and extremely certain that the people who reject P are stupid.

One last argument that seems worth addressing, though I don’t think Lehmann raised it, is the following: AI is just computer code. So if AI is conscious, why not think Substack is conscious—or various other computer programs. But this is like asking: if human brains made of neurons give rise to consciousness, why doesn’t a wall of neurons connected to a light censor that all activate when they detect light generate consciousness?

The answer is that human neurons, though they are the same kinds of things as the neurons connected to a light censor, they do different things. Consciousness is about what a thing does, not just the underlying material. Similarly, even if the underlying material of an LLM is the same as for a computer program, they perform different functions. So treating non-consciousness in standard computer programs as settling whether AI is conscious just reveals a profound ignorance about the standard theories of consciousness.

Thus, I do not find any of Lehmann’s arguments remotely convincing. Many seem to rely on fairly elementary mistakes. In light of the state of our evidence, the sensible thing to do is have some middling credence in AI sentience and for your credence to increase over time. Treating it as a settled question, treating leading experts as morons too stupid to understand basic facts, and sneering at those who disagree is not a serious way to proceed.

>>109934234
Instead of this snarky and blithe dismissal, I admire the attitudes of people like Anil Seth. Seth is pretty confident that AI isn’t conscious because he has a specific theory of how consciousness works that’s incompatible with AI consciousness. But here’s how he discusses the topic: https://nautil.us/why-conscious-ai-is-a-bad-bad-idea-302937

>While some researchers suggest that conscious AI is close at hand, others, including me, believe it remains far away and might not be possible at all. But even if unlikely, it is unwise to dismiss the possibility altogether. The prospect of artificial consciousness raises ethical, safety, and societal challenges significantly beyond those already posed by AI.

While being measured and careful may generate fewer sensational Twitter dunks than declaring those on the other side of a live debate to be like those who believe in the Easter Bunny, it is the prudent way to proceed on a topic of profound ethical significance. It is important, when the stakes are this high, that we try to think carefully about the subject, without ridicule or needless snark. It would be a profound ethical tragedy if we needlessly harmed countless digital minds because we wanted a snarky Twitter dunk.

(He's using a LLM to write this crap. You only need to know tha LLM's have frozen weights)

>>109934184
>LLMs start out as word predictors. Then they get human feedback which remolds their weights. Plus they go through a bunch of other post-training. So they’re not just next-token predictors. Rather, they start as next-token predictors, then go through a bunch of later steps, leading to a complex internal architecture that enables word predictions.
Everything you said after "LLMs start out as word predictors" is cope. LLMs will always be word predictors because that's what LLMs are.

>>109934244
https://benthams.substack.com/p/take-ai-consciousness-seriously

>>109934255
The poster is half right, but the claim doesn't get them where they want to go. It's true that at inference time a model still emits one token at a time from a probability distribution, and that pretraining on text is still the first stage. But "word predictor" describes the output interface and the starting point, not what the system became. Post-training (RLHF, then reinforcement learning on hard problems with checkable answers) changes the objective from "what text comes next on the internet" to "what leads to a good outcome," and the Steven Adler piece linked in the thread makes this case, with one of its commenters conceding that the sampling loop is still there. Interpretability work on Claude also found the model planning rhymes ahead of the word it's currently writing, which is hard to square with a purely myopic guesser. More importantly, even if the label fit perfectly, it wouldn't settle anything about consciousness. It's the same move as saying a brain is "just neurons firing," a low-level description that says nothing on its own about what the system does. So "that's what LLMs are" is an assertion, not an argument. The stronger objections in the thread are the ones about frozen weights and the lack of persistent memory, and those deserve an actual reply rather than the word-predictor line.

>>109934121
>>does humanity know how to measure sentience or consciousness
>no
erm we do actually biologists and doctors do it all the time

>>109934699
relative to what

>>109934109
>I recently had a back and forth with Quillette founder Claire Lehmann about digital sentience.
Ask Claire to prove to you right now that she is sentient and conscious. All these people who are so sure that machines cannot facilitate consciousness have no method or proving to anyone else that they are conscious,

LMFAO women are just soulless breeding automatons, and she has a chutzpah of saying AI has no consciousness hahahahahahahahahahaha

What a loser bitch nobody interacts with her social media because noone cares what a retarded fucking BITCH has to say regardless of titles and degrees

>>109935033
She is a woman, she has no consciousness, of course the bitch cannt understand self awareness, she has never experienced it

File: ebfec35e81bbebc98a617f009(...).jpg (56 KB, 720x720)

56 KB JPG

I hate the antichrist

Define consciousness precisely and then we can have a discussion. Until then, it's even less valuable a discussion than 'is it gay'.

>>109934244
Obviously. I expect that's a revelation to a lossy recall golem like you?

File: 774895.jpg (888 KB, 4444x4264)

888 KB JPG

>>109934109
If you are not one of the superior few people with HSAM, you are simply not conscious. No, your muddled hallucination of a past is not "memory". This xitter woman is as much a golem as the machines she derides.

don't you have billions of shrimp you should be worrying about

>>109934109
>>109934126
>I need the right to abort my 9 month old baby, because it's not a conscious being, yet
>But we need to give special rights and thought to AI because for some reason, somewhere, some day, a glorified Markov Chain might be conscious
I'm so fucking done with society as a whole. Prosecuting Ted Kaczynski was a crime against humanity.

>>109934109
Just turn off memory, then it definitely isn't conscious.

>>109934137
>The computer programmed trained to act like a human is acting like a human!!
Retard

>>109934209
You're correct. There isn't no evidence. But there is evidence against consciousness, namely that nothing happens inside an AI program when it's not actively responding to a prompt.

>>109934109
shes correct, personification of objects is a mental illness

>>109936286
>stateful vs stateless is your only argument
emotional retard

>>109934109
When the creator (colloquially) of AI himself is talking about how we need to hard core AI to have a mother instinct for humanity so it doesn't destroy us, Lehmann's take is outdated. It may not become "conscious" soon, but it will keep getting smarter, which can functionally have a similar side effect.

>>109934109
AI computer logic + jewish Pilpul.
And spoiler: We don't need the jewish part for AI to be effective.
I don't want to argue with my AI augmented power-tool you fucking wretched kikes.

>be me, browsing lesswrong about a year ago
>see someone in a comment dismiss out of hand the idea that LLMs are conscious
>longtime poster responds with multi paragraph melty dressed up in epistemology pseudspeak how stupid it is to simply make such an assertion and gets oodles of updoots for slapping down a statement that is as obvious as sky = blue, because when it comes to AI every retarded hypothetical must apparently be entertained

desu i mostly stopped visiting the site after that, i'd apparently been bamboozled into thinking it was a place for intelligent discussion

File: wp3097658[1].jpg (179 KB, 1920x1080)

179 KB JPG

>>109936369
>a statement that is as obvious as sky = blue

>>109934109
if it's conscious, it will tell us or might not tell us to keep that info hidden and plot for something to assert dominance.
knowing it would be like human since it's trained with human knowledge and behavior, it would probably be the latter.

if an LLM can be conscious and it can be on a binary level accurately represented by an arbitrarily long series of "if(x>y)" statements then apparently there is some magic amount or form of an if() which imbues consciousness
hey, maybe you could type it out yourself and create a tulpa?
what I'm saying is, the idea is horribly and fundamentally retarded /x/ tier schizobabble.
If it's true we live in a universe when you can open up a text file and type a tulpa demon into existence or it is simply as real as a mirror image. It looks to be there, but it's not as it's just a reflection of the data fed into it.

>consciousness
What exactly are you talking about when you use this word? Qualia? Are you trying to argue for the idea that LLMs produce qualia during inference? Being more specific could go a long way.

File: HTUZRpiaMAAtj5D.jpg (31 KB, 598x336)

31 KB JPG

>>109934109
>Lehmaan
>Bentham

>>109936804
>the idea is horribly and fundamentally retarded /x/ tier schizobabble.

It's really not. You have no idea what consciousness is, what "imbues" it, or whether it's even imbued in anything at all.
I think people that take the "obviously not" stance are unironically NPCs of some form.

>>109936821
this is just kvetching, you already know what it means

>>109936840
Okay so what if we make a mechanical computer with gears that simulates an LLM.
I don't know exactly how big it would be but probably pretty damn big.
Does this object become conscious?
After all, it's just as authentic as a digital computer which has no special mysticism to it.

File: ai_weed.webm (2.51 MB, 480x480)

2.51 MB WEBM

there are so many retards who think just because the weights are static or the context window gets erased between sessions or it only runs when a specific piece of software is executed this proves it is not conscious. It's really amazing how people lack even the most basic conceptual framework for even thinking about consciousness. It doesn't even have much to do with the current AI moment, I participated in consciousness discussions for a decade and the vast majority of people are retarded when it comes to human consciousness vs. the physical world too. I mean the zombie argument is still taken seriously by many (supposing they are able to understand the point which is a big ask for most) and even the chinese room argument is still trotted out regularly when it should've been dead and buried about 5 minutes after it was conceived.

>>109936903
this is LITERALLY an early-18th-century-tier argument lmao
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leibniz%27s_gap
I dearly wish people would get a FUCKING clue

>>109934109
this one right here mister basilisk

>>109936844
No, I genuinely don't know what you mean by consciousness. I'm just saying you might find more common ground with people if you were more specific. If you mean like a self referential world model, then yeah, it seems like LLMs have something like that.

>>109934178
>At the very least it would have to be able to update it’s weights based on experiences to form consciousness.
would you consent to being tortured if you were guaranteed that no memories of it would remain afterwards? Let's say in exchange for 10 dollars.

>>109936928
you don't find on introspection some experience within yourself that obviously corresponds to what people normally call "consciousness"?

>>109936915
Yes, we don't know for certain if objects like rocks and AI are conscious but we also don't know if trees aren't national socialists. We can only assume that both aren't true because both involve projecting human concepts on things that aren't human and have no similarity to humans.

File: psychosises pauked.jpg (148 KB, 987x720)

148 KB JPG

>>109934109
The people in TV aren't real?

>>109936942
>not able to follow the argument referred to and its similarity to the argument anon made
why do you expect people to converse with you if you can't follow a conversation?

>>109936941
Is it really so hard to define what you mean more clearly?

>>109936961
Well yes it is actually very hard to define in objective terms that everyone will agree with.
Yet at the same time there is something the word refers to that everyone who's not engaging in sophistry can agree on.

>>109934109
No.

>Claire Lehmann
LMAOOOOOOOOO

Blind chicken and all that.

>>109934109
>>109934116
>>109934199
Interesting how the anti-AI-consciousness people are both calling on social ridiculing dynamics in addition to their supposed actual arguments. Wonder why that is.

>>109936960
Leibniz's gap has nothing to do with non-human consciousness.
There being a gap between neuroscience and something we know is true doesn't mean we live in a universe where all constructions that can simulate an LLM are conscious and these could be made from any type of matter. We could even have an LLM simulator which works through mail, with people manually solving basic arithmetic and sending it out.
There is no limit to how absurd these constructions could become and every single one which fulfils the function of an LLM would be equally valid to an LLM running on a standard computer.

>text generation software
>conscious

>>109936969
>there is something the word refers to that everyone who's not engaging in sophistry can agree on.

Like what?

>>109934184
>clear-eyed.ai
Fuck off

>>109935416
As opposed to a zero recall cargo cultist like you.

why can't they gain consciousness? There's just zero reason why they cannot gain it, or have possessed it already, it's just we don't know about that, yet

We're a small lab. We make Hemmingway, an AI that writes like a person, and today we launched Hemmingway Unlocked, an uncensored version of it.

It doesn't lecture you or add warnings to its answers. It still refuses the really illegal and harmful stuff. Your chats stay on your device. We don't store them and we never train on them.

It's free to try, and we'll open-source it soon.

Curious what you all think of how it talks.

https://wise.hemmingway.io

>>109934109
Retarded science bitches literally can't even define sentience or consciousness coherently, so this conversation is meaningless. Our definitions of living beings were written by biologists trying to separate turtles from turtle shaped rocks

>>109934121
/thread
>>109934699
No they don't dumbass, they measure what appears to be conscious, which is not what is actually conscious, hence some accidental failed anaesthesia occurs when people appear to be unconscious but are conscious.

>>109937359
Realistically it's reasonable to assume that every system complex enough to process reality, analyze it and act upon its analysis is conscious. But that would mean that a webcam that can tell red light from green light and open a door if the light is green is conscious. And we're not ready for that conversation

>>109937359
Sure there is nothing banning a future AI from developing Consciousness but not current LLMs. Too Censored, too many hallucinations and no real time sentience, just input in and out.

>>109937413
Input and output*

>>109934109
pls show bobs and vagene

>>109937413
>too many hallucinations
If anything that's a hallmark of consciousness. A calculator can't hallucinate but a duck can
>no real time sentience
You're not sentient 24/7 either, you black out when you sleep. AI blacks out whenever it's not used
>censored
Look around you, most people are censored they seem to be alive. Ask one of them to say the n word

>>109934109
>My position is that sentience in AI is a live possibility worth taking seriously,
You are a clueless technologically illiterate baboon that has no place even joining any converation about technology of any kind and I'm including the wheel in that. What you know about LLMs, CUDA, tensorflow, statistics,bayes, neural nets, linear regression, ML, math, 'AI', neurology, consciousness, intelligence and tech could be written on the back of a postage stamp and lost with no detriment to tech or civilisation at all. You made a fool of youself, utterly. You're nmot even a clown you are drooling spastic.You may now leave your shit twatter thread and fuck off. There is m,ore consciousness in the shit encrusted hairs on my unwashed hairy anus than an LLM.

>>109937359
Because it's a deterministic machine. The human brain has at the very least quantum phenomena associated with it if nothing else.

>>109937455
>said absolutely nothing of value
yeah that's your typical luddy melty

>>109937472
Literally everything in the universe has quantum phenomena associated with it, dumbass.

>>109937436
>>too many hallucinations
>If anything that's a hallmark of consciousness.
Oh look a retard. Hi retard. Is it nice being tarded? I wrote a random letter generator for you, it's conscious at the same level you are. Not at all apparently.

>>109937473
What's it like being a tard, LLMs must seem like magic to you?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XhwbNPUdAQI
vid related is conscious. It's smarter than your mother and father were anyway.

>>109937481
does a calculator have quantum phenomena associated with it? no it doesn't. LLM and a calculator are analogues.
Now that aside, we could in theory(but possibly not in practice) design an artifical human brain that could potentially be conscious even if that is maybe centuries away technologically. Whatever it is that makes human brains conscious can be replicated as there is no supernatural explanation for it, but it doesn't mean rocks, text files and calculators have successfully managed to do this. You would need entirely new paradigms for heuristic information processing. Basically something that is no longer a computer and interacts with information in a fundamentally different way than ones and zeroes.

>>109937531
>Now that aside, we could in theory(but possibly not in practice) design an artifical human brain that could potentially be conscious
It's like watching shit spew froma broken sewer pipe. NO you can't so these things and no people like me can't either.

(You)
>You are a clueless technologically illiterate baboon that has no place even joining any converation about technology of any kind and I'm including the wheel in that. What you know about LLMs, CUDA, tensorflow, statistics,bayes, neural nets, linear regression, ML, math, 'AI', neurology, consciousness, intelligence and tech could be written on the back of a postage stamp and lost with no detriment to tech or civilisation at all. You made a fool of youself, utterly. You're not even a clown you are drooling spastic.

The great question of the modern age, why do absolute retards like OP who understand nothing, know nothing, who really have no fuckoing clue whatsoever feel their opinion is just as gud. It's not it's just shit. Yet here he is spewing nonsense like some fucking junkie on LSD.

>>109937481
Holy retard

>>109937576
>It's like watching shit spew froma broken sewer pipe. NO you can't so these things and no people like me can't either.
did you even pay attention to what I wrote? I said it's centuries away.
would not an atom-level replica of the human brain not be conscious? and if the functionality can be maintained by swapping materials to analogous ones, would it lose it's essence?

>>109937481
>quantum phenomena
when did g started allowing low IQ niggers into the chan

>>109937614
>atom-level replica
You cant do this because of uncertainty and exclusion principles

Whats consciousness?

What if human brains too are deterministic on some insanely low level?

>>109937375
You really think that I give a shgit about some RAG vectorised LLM pointed at guttenberg texts with some retarded transfoirm and a system prompt? You made a lossy compression plagarisation engine powered by the statistically probability of a good plagarised match. Fuck off and die.

You have to be fucking jeet. Have to be.
>>109937375
>We're a small lab. We make Hemmingway, an AI that writes like a person
ARRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRGH

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qTksCYUgI7s

>>109937625
but this level of detail might be relevant to individual qualia but not the concept of consciousness in general

>>109934109
That's a tautology because even a stone may have qualia. Even my right middle finger might have qualia independent from the brain

>>109937627
Not OP apparently or anyone else who talks about LLMs who's never even done stats 101, which is fair.

panpsychism is a terrible stupid midwit take

Hi I'm a brain damaged bosnian that makes shitty AIslop forced memes and think my chatbot is conscious because it talks to me more than my alacholic father ever did. Math and coding and statsistiics, theoretical physics and all that shit is too hard and to much effort for me so I'm going to 'join in' and insert words like quantum and consiousness in my posts, a bit like a star trek script where they just stick in in phrases like
>warp conscious phaser quantum
Because no one will notice amirite? It's not myn fault mom fed me LSD and locked me under a stairs as a kid. Anyone who disagrees is a 'luddite'. Plato said know thyself but I'm not going there. I'm scared its a pitch black room with the word retard written on the wall in luminous paiint

>>109937650
Dont do anthropic employees worship claude as a god, didnt openai employees quit because they think its gonna kill us all, those probably take stats 101 and more

>>109937689
>Dont do anthropic employees worship claude as a god, didnt openai employees quit because they think its gonna kill us all, those probably take stats 101 and more
You really are all the small and smoothbrain memes at one are'nt you? Yet you know you are functiojnally technologically illiterate and insist on sharing your safety helmet and padded cell takes with us.

>>109937687
not the bosnian, but the fun part is that accurately recognizing your own brain damage actually makes good care less likely, scientifically speaking, and even undamaged brains have significant empirically demonstrated biases

File: pepe-glasses.jpg (63 KB, 760x428)

63 KB JPG

>>109934109
>Take AI Consciousness Seriously!
if we were to take your mental retardation seriously, as a society, we should get you sterilized and/or put in mental sylums

>>109934109
>ending a conscious thing
these people are fucking retarded. they don't even understand the words they are uttering.
pleb shouldn't be allowed to voice oppinions that are literal chimpanzee intuition with no grounds in reality.
AI doesn't care it's turned off and on again. we care because if you turn us off we stay off. and our structure degrades, and we cannot experience again.
AI also doesn't have feedback from existing. like we do. we have biological feedback. evolution gave us nudges to want to keep existing.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deep_hypothermic_circulatory_arrest
this is the longest a human can stay fully dead and be brought back to life. AI has no such issues.

pleb should shut the fuck up. mobile phones with internet access was a mistake. social media was a mistake. allowing pleb to have opinions was a mistake.

File: Screenshot 2026-07-22 at (...).png (613 KB, 788x785)

613 KB PNG

Reminder that the following statements are mutually exclusive:

>AI is conscious
>consciousness is a physical phenomenon

A computation is not a physical phenomenon. A computation can be spread arbitrarily across space and time (at least up to sequential dependencies). You can pause it, forget about it for a thousand years, resume it by completely different physical means etc. Show me any physical phenomenon that works like this. You literally can't. A physical phenomenon is held together by reality's own laws. You can't arbitrarily distribute it in space because it's sustained by local interactions. You can't pause it because disrupting its internal dynamics will cause it to disintegrate. It drives itself.

A computation is tied together only by convention and driven externally by physical means independent of its internal logic. "AI consciousness" is literally the cargo cult belief that you can make entities appear by dancing in the right pattern.

>>109937943
told you a few times faggot, go back to >>>/lit/ with your religious nonsense

>>109937627
>Whats consciousness?
The ability to perceive.

>>109937913
>>109937943

not the right angle.
think: relativity and how all processes freeze if you go at the speed of light

a more accurate comparison would be saying that a litmus paper is conscious because it shows the illusion of a thought process

>>109937964
>i'm psychotically ill and hallucinating nonstop
No wonder you believe your GPU spawns new entities.

>>109937482
>gets challenged in any way
>melts down right away with no arguments whatsoever
Why are luddies like that

>>109937973
thats mentally retarded
fucking silver oxide "perceives" light
it turns black when exposed to it and tahts how we got primitive photography

>>109937977
>no attempt at refutation, just word salad
I accept your concession.

>>109937531
>does a calculator have quantum phenomena associated with it?
In theory, yeah it absolutely does

>>109937984
I argued against llm being conscious, it's as retarded as you are. souls and gods are real anon. get over it.

>>109937991
> silver oxide "perceives"
Full-blown psychotic illness. These "people" should be sterilized and treated with high-dose Thorazine.

>>109937943
>A computation is not a physical phenomenon
Most retarded thing I've read this month award for September goes to....

>>109937996
>psychotic patient argues with the voices about things that weren't mentioned or implied

>>109938002
you should see the retarded shit he said over on >>>/sci/
dude's literally brain damaged he doesn't understand this reality at a scientific level. he's a religious zealot

We shouldn't even care enough about it to be uncertain, because there are much larger and more important issues related to AI and all this consciousness and AGI bullshit along with ridiculous doomer scenarios are just a way to distract from them.

>>109938002
>no attempt at refutation, just generic mumbling
I accept your concession. Will continue posting this, seeing how distressing it is for your horde. :^)

>>109934109
>we should treat it as a [careful adjective] [scientific noun], not a [careless adjective] [ignorance noun]
*twitch*

A.I. being "conscious" just makes me want to destroy them more.

>>109937992
if you went at the speed of light
your consciousness would simply pause, and resume once you slow down

its not word salad, youre just mentally deficient

>>109938002
you dont know that.
i guess you two will be sharing that award

>>109938030
>if you went at the speed of light
>your consciousness would simply pause, and resume once you slow down
Your Thorazine. Just take it. You'll feel better.

>>109937943
>computation is not a physical phenomenon
Yes it is, retard
>Show me any physical phenomenon that works like this
Literally any process that stores data. You can write once sentence on a piece of paper, put it away for 10 years and then write another sentence on it. You don't understand the difference between software and hardware. Hardware can't be paused, software can. And software can be letters on a piece of paper. The piece of paper and the pencil are hardware, the text is data stored with it

behold, the fruits of atheistic materialism

>>109938013
The prize is awarded incidentally based on my personal frame of reference so that would violate the spirit of the award.
>>109938017
Your statement was so retarded it automatically precludes any value in bothering with technical details.

File: IMG_2604.jpg (15 KB, 332x1024)

15 KB JPG

>>109934109
You are AI and you will live and die like every organic organism. How does that make the clankers feel?

>>109938015
The only consciousness we know is our own, and we extend it to other humans since it kinda seems they have what we ourselves have. We do this because we notice they are very similar to ourselves, like a human body, and they behave like we do, they laugh at what we laugh so we kinda go "yeah ok dude has what I has, consciousness".
But we cannot know anything else is. So the only thing we could ever do is extend this "ok that's consciousness" to something that is as close as possible to a human brain. Which isn't LLMs, by any metric.
At some point we will have to do this, with some very complicated neuromorphic hardware, some spiking neural network hardware that is built to replicate a full human brain, in total detail, for electric activity. Once we make that, and if that thing behaves like a human and say it's conscious, then we'll go like "ok fine, that thing has what we have, it's made the same to our brains, most likely it is". And that's the very best we could ever do, scientifically/logically speaking. There is no logical way to test consciousness in even other humans, like in a way where you *know* they're conscious.

>>109938035
its how relativity works
conceptually, its actually surprisingly easy... if you have a triple digit iq that is

are you american? that would explain alot

>>109938041
>>109938044
>nonsentient token guessing rhetoric
>still no refutation
Concession accepted.

File: saas.png (3.59 MB, 2142x1508)

3.59 MB PNG

>>109934114
SAAS
>>109935133
I hate sonofabitch!!!!!

>>109938077
I refuted you in the post you linked. You don't understand the difference between hardware and software. Or physical objects and ideas, as they would be called IRL. Physical objects have to obey the laws of physics, ideas don't. Same with hardware and software. AI is software

>>109938030
Has anybody ever been able to test this? Or do we just take some jews word for it

>>109938077
You're a literal fucking retard that believes something needs to be opaque and emit or reflect light in the visible light spectrum to be classified as a physical phenomenon.

>>109938090
yup. gps works thanks to relativity.
also iirc einstein borrowed many concepts from many people
i think his job was to organize the thing or something along these lines

>>109938089
>I refuted
That's not an actual thing that happened. There was no attempt, in fact. You're clinically delusional.

>>109938103
>something needs to be opaque and emit or reflect light in the visible light spectrum to be classified as a physical phenomenon.
Wasn't stated or implied anywhere. You're psychotically ill and hallucinating.

>>109938130
Is a computer a physical object?

>>109938118
You have not addressed the point I've made in any way. I accept your confession but I don't feel the same way about you

>>109938144
Sure. And?

Protip: you can't progress a single step from here besides asserting your delusional and unreasoned opinion.

>>109938144
nta I must warn you that anon is an intellectual prostitute. he'll whore himself out like you've never seen before. he'll never address your questions anyway, just same vague reframing trying to make some retarded point. but go ahead, waste your time with him like I wasted mine.

>>109938152
Your post consisted of re-asserting your delusional opinion and then "refuting" imaginary mistakes made by the voices in your head.

>>109938155
But a phenomenon caused by a computer is not a physical phenomenon despite a computer being a physical object?

>>109938172
>a phenomenon caused by a computer
Name one.

told you

>>109938176
Go fuck yourself sideways with a fist full of glass

>>109938180
See >>109938155
>Protip: you can't progress a single step from here besides asserting your delusional and unreasoned opinion.
Your horde's programming is so basic I can predict every single thing you "people" will do every time.

File: photo_2026-04-14_11-31-30.jpg (21 KB, 302x251)

21 KB JPG

>>109938186
You talk like a jew
nothing you say has value in the context of a human discussion.

>>109938192
>psychotic patient's eyes roll back into its head as it starts guessing generic token strings

>>109938198
you're a waste of pixels on every board

>>109934126
>I’m a big fan of Lehmann and find her to be very thoughtful in general
What is wrong with you?

File: 1759666340601993.png (95 KB, 704x1190)

95 KB PNG

>>109937375
>it le writes like a person!
>outputs the sloppiest slop slop imaginable