by ninetyninenine | 2025-07-25 06:56:29+00:00
>You've presented none for yours;

Why the fuck do I have to present evidence for my claim: "We don't fucking know."? I mean that's the one claim you don't need to present any fucking evidence for. But I did anyway by citing Geoffrey Hinton WHO literally said he we don't fucking know what is going on.

>Nah. Go on, find me an expert in the field that disagrees with this. Which one is saying it's plausible, let alone likely, that these things are conscious?

No one says it's plausible, no one says it's unlikely. THEY ARE ALL saying they don't know. And THAT is my claim. PLENTY of evidence for this.

>Your failing the Turing test doesn't mean we all do.

Bro, you have failed it multiple times already. Half the shit on HN and everything you've read could be generated.

>Sure we do. It's explicitly built to do that. It's supposed to be confusingly like a human, because it's a probability generator based on oodles of real human input.

It was NOT built to do that. The fact that it can communicate with us was an emergent side effect. NO ONE expected it. Not even the inventors of transformers. It was built on ONE thing and it turned out to be extremely good at another thing. Every one knows this. Everyone in the game, which you obvously aren't.

>Sure there is. I've talked with LLMs. It's very apparent they aren't conscious.

I've talked with people with down syndrome or schizophrenia who are stupider and less consistent and more delusional than LLMs. They are what we consider conscious, because if we didn't we could save society from a lot of resource drainage by just putting a bullet in their heads and be done with it.

Fact of the matter is, there is very little observable difference between a human with brain damage and chatGPT other then the fact that chatGPT can be a genius as well as stupid.

>But I'm very, very comfortable with my position here until provided with very, very solid evidence to the contrary.

Good to know. Your comfort is an indicator of how irrational you are.

>(To be clear: "very very solid evidence" is not a rando on the Internet pulling a widely-flagged HN Don Quixote.)

You referring to me? No need to be insulting here.

My point is simply this. We don't know. and your counter evidence is simply "I can tell because I talked to it."

So you say you're going to stand in your position which you arrived at, on zero evidence while I say "we don't know."?

I think it's clear you're not a very logical person.

That being said, and I don't agree with Geoffrey Hinton on this matter, BUT, here is the most eminent god father of modern AI saying the exact fucking opposite of what you're saying:

https://youtu.be/vxkBE23zDmQ?t=362

We have someone smarter than you and basically an expert in the field saying they are conscious (mind you I think he's just saying it's very likely to be conscious). And do you notice his reasoning? It's not proof but he uses logical induction and builds off of what happens when you take a single neuron and take the logic all the way to the end. This is very different from your: "I talked to chatGPT so I can tell it's not alive" bullshit reasoning.

The thing that Geoffrey misses IS, we don't have a technical definition of consciousness AND we don't even know how to characterize it for people let alone an LLM. So we actually don't know if the feedforward network in Transformers can fit the definition of consciousness.

We can guess that it's conscious from the output, but the actual ground truth reality is: "we don't know."