> We are likely talking past each other here. By "searching" I don't mean how inference is currently carried out by efficiently analyzing the context window using weights trained on large data sets fine tuned on specific goals.
> I mean the process by which novel information is discovered, which is why many proponents of AI will concede that it's not currently capable of "doing science" or making novel discoveries.
Huh. I think those are the same thing?
But then, I say that AI can do science. Not that I would recommend specifically an LLM for this, but what was AlphaFold doing if not science? Or even GOFAI having been used for the four colour theorem back in the day.
> Not sure I understand, we have a pretty good understanding of what qualia actually is, even if it can be difficult or awkward to talk about conceptually.
Hm. How to rephrase…
Can you create a testable definition of it?
> The gap between having a subjective experience and not having one is a large one, just ask anyone who's alive but under general anaesthesia that induces loss of consciousness. Qualia is simply what arises from the quality and character of having a subjective experience.
Purely from asking them questions, how will you differentiate between each of these cases?
1) A person under general anaesthesia that induces loss of consciousness
2) A person under the influence of a paralytic agent without anaesthesia, who is fully aware of their surroundings but unable to respond
3) A brain-dead person
4) A person with locked-in syndrome
5) A person in REM sleep who is currently dreaming but unaware of the surrounding real world
6) A person in deep (non-dream) sleep who also has no awareness of the surrounding real world
7) An unborn foetus (any species)
There are people with locked-in syndrome who later recover, who report that those around them treated them as if they were non-conscious.
