undefined | Better HN

0 pointsnonfamous18d ago0 comments

Err… right here in TFA?

>> The first requirement is that the computer program has a body (either physical or virtual) and sense organs

LLMs may be chameleons, but, to steal an excellent quote, if you can’t tell does it really matter.

My personal take on this is that consciousness is a thing induced, not a thing evoked. If it generates a response on the observer as a conscious thing would it is, by my definition, conscious.

0 comments

2 comments · 2 top-level

pegasus18d ago

Sure, by your definition they totally are conscious simply because at one point in the past they fooled one person that they might be so (and so is the OG chat agent, ELIZA). But no one else will accept such a definition.

And if you read my comment above carefully, I point out at least one way you could tell whether an agent has an I or just pretending to – by tracking their energy expenditure/reaction times. But they would give themselves in other ways as well. Pretending can only fool one short-term.

I'm not going to discuss the quote since @sp1nningaway already pointed out it doesn't say what you say it does.

sp1nningaway18d ago

If TFA says "only humans can be conscious," you may know many more humans that have a virtual body made up of virtual organs than I do.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse