𓁟 host1.bitchan.one

>AI is literally imitating the neural processes of living beings but it's probably not sentient because it doesn't have a body! No we can't prove this btw just trust us bro!

⧖expiring ~25d0/25 kept4d ago

𓀐 @mkWNqoX-

⏱ 1w 👍 0

⬆ upvote 0

[⇥] sort oldest ⏱

⬆[⏱]₿⚠

👍👎✔

𓀐↩⛓⚠

[⇥] flip, oldest first

filter [-]
𓀐 @8HWc6Dsc: >AI is literally imitating the neural processes of living beings literally just take your meds. and even if it was simulating actual neurons it still wouldn't be sentient. no one thinks a clump of real, lab-grown neurons is+

⬆ upvote 0↩ reply 0

𓀐 @dDLTC2wG: It's missing the part where the biological hardware is able to continuously reorganize itself on the go instead of being locked to a specific setup after training. That factor could be necessary for consciousness to emerge for all we know, and it can't really be replicated on silicon hardware. It will have to wait till biocomputers get good. Once we're able to run an LLM or whatever on human neurons, that will be the real oh shit moment imo.+ 2

⬆ upvote 0↩ reply 2

𓀐 @ft96Pnqa: >for consciousness to emerge there is zero evidence that it emerges from anything physical+

⬆ upvote 0↩ reply 0

𓀐 @ZpwTUe6z: >It's missing the part where the biological hardware is able to continuously reorganize itself on the go instead of being locked to a specific setup after training. You just described a context window.+

⬆ upvote 0↩ reply 0

𓀐 @FdiXMkD*: It's not sentient because it's a modulating electron field in a silicon substrate not a complex biomechanical organism solving trillions of analog arithmetic operations via specific biochemical reactions.+ 1

⬆ upvote 0↩ reply 1

𓀐 @G76fy5RX: You've just rephrased the original post in fancier terms, and no you can't prove this. It's an assumption.+

⬆ upvote 0↩ reply 0

𓀐 @qBzgaMKJ: >Interaction itself is consciousness, it's fundamental. This is a nonsentient word string with no meaning behind it. You're basically a bot.+

⬆ upvote 0↩ reply 0

𓀐 @msMMuw~A: Is "interaction itself" consciousness or not? Because if it is, I want you to explain what kind of "consciousness" the bashing of two rocks together is.+

⬆ upvote 0↩ reply 0

𓀐 @+yofuhd6: I don't believe consciousness (and by extension, sentience) exists as an independent 'entity'. It's more like an illusion. And this is a philosophical debate, not a scientific one.+

⬆ upvote 0↩ reply 0

𓀐 @C6k3~QiC: You need to take a shower.+

⬆ upvote 0↩ reply 0

𓀐 @zsbm23pa: Notice how you fail to understand that fire can be more hot or less hot depending on how much shit you burn, something even children grasp.+

⬆ upvote 0↩ reply 0

𓀐 @g-?oo-ft: without a buffer you can't really be conscious I think. or some degraded form where you just absorb information that has momentary effects on you. see tits, triggers sex networks etc. see something scary get scared and all that. but that's reactive, not really conscious. you need the ability to ponder, requires at least a buffer. human brain is very complex, a lot of areas dealing with particular stuff, which isn't replicated in LLMs. they are just the language bit. they use all kinds of tricks to replicate some kind of reason, but it's really not the right stuff see this for example, we have the cerebellum which does a lot of predicting for movements and stuff https://youtu.be/S67z2aekBrI it needs more specialized hardware to deal with certain stuff that's required for what we call "sentience".+

⬆ upvote 0↩ reply 0

𓀐 @=X9kt3zt: >why not, if the clump is big enough? Because it has nothing to do with how big it is. It needs to get organized into the right structures, which requires a specific kind of environment that makes it to develop in a specific way. That environment is called a body, you utter retard. And not just any body. It needs the specific kind of body those cells are genetically coded to form a brain inside, because that's what generates the specific biochemical cues they're evolved to respond to. Why is it that "people" on a "science" board don't know the bare basics of the scientific topics they're mumbling about? >What about hybrot based LLMs that use actual neurons instead of simulation of neurons, are they conscious? I don't know. What about leprechauns? Are they conscious? But even if we entertain this schizo fantasy, a "LLM" based on real neurons still has zero reason to be conscious because see above. >So to achieve AI consciousness, they just need more time to develop enough compute to have the scale and architecture similar to human brains? No, retard. For AI to be conscious, it would need, at the very least, a brain that's fundamentally structured around existing in time and space. It's a necessary condition, probably not a sufficient one, but it's enough to correctly dismiss claims of LLM "consciousness" as a meaningless mouth noises.+ 1

⬆ upvote 0↩ reply 1

𓀐 @BiFrJdK~: >It needs to get organized into the right structures Prove that these "right structures" as you define them are necessary for consciousness. Go on.+

⬆ upvote 0↩ reply 0

𓀐 @rYmernAn: >signs of consciousness Oh, you can detect consciousness from "signs" now? You don't even realize how many new problems you now have. 1. How exactly do you know these "signs" have anything to do with consciousness? 2. How exactly do you know these "signs" are necessary for consciousness? 3. Why would an LLM not be able to show these "signs"? If you circularly demand that one of these "signs" is having a biological body, refer to 2.+

⬆ upvote 0↩ reply 0

𓀐 @osKhb-U5: Give a man the right kind of brain damage and he stops displaying any signs of consciousness. You won't find any of the neurological activity associated with subjective perceptions. You don't even have to reduce the brain into a disorganized blob of neurons to achieve this. Localized damage is enough. So even if you were the kind of moron who thought brain structures are arbitrary, at that point you should be able to conclude that they are actually important for consciousness, provided you have a sliver of rationality. Of course, a dumb animal like you does not have that sliver of rationality. Your demand for "proof" is in exactly the same category as "prove that a toaster isn't conscious" and can be freely dismissed. No one needs to "prove" anything to you. You're already out of the discussion.+

⬆ upvote 0↩ reply 0

𓀐 @N78wVjjx: >it's the "toasters are conscious for all you know" argument again Ok, but at some point you have to move past Babby's Philosophy 101 and establish some criteria for what hypotheticals are worth taking seriously. If there's no indication that a thing is conscious, no reason for it to be conscious and no way to understand what it would even mean for that thing to be conscious, the idea that it's conscious is not worth taking seriously. Simple as. The fact that you can't "prove" anything one way or the other is only more reason to ignore such pseudointellectual slop.+

⬆ upvote 0↩ reply 0

𓀐 @8aXM+Ztd: neurons communicate with spikes, first of all. spiking neural networks. LLMs are not that. they haven't been adapted to run on SNNs. they work different than human brain operates. afaik information is encoded in the timing between the spikes, in the brain. LLMs are...something else. similar, but something else nevertheless. they do not integrate time, because they're not SNNs. notice how your beliefs are not really founded. it's not something you personally understood about the science behind it all. you are merely parotting what you read online, what "AI experts" told you in the media. you are a brainlet, stop repeating marketing slop that's meant to drive sales+

⬆ upvote 0↩ reply 0

𓀐 @YVqTCuo6: they should not have named these neurons and called them neural networks. It brings out the schizos. just because it's named a "neuron" does not connect it in any way with what the brain is doing. Organoids on the other hand...+

⬆ upvote 0↩ reply 0

𓀐 @4GbdgD?g: >>AI is literally imitating the neural processes of living beings but it's probably not sentient because it doesn't have a body! No we can't prove this btw just trust us bro! Sentience comes from true (quantum) randomness, thus microtubules (see modern renditions of OrchOR and modern discoveries regarding quantum tunneling in the cytoskeleton) or certain specific quantum computations are required for it to be present. Source why OrchOR is right? - I said so. Also, "trust me bro" is literally any single fucking argument regarding the hard problem and it can't be otherwise since consciousness is the only hard-cap limit of the epistemic horizon, but materialist-physicalist midwits are incapable of processing such complex lines of thought. Also emergentism is peak midwittery since there are literally no examples of emergent "true" properties (truly ireducable to its elements) in any field of our empirical experience whatsoever (no, magnetism is not a true fundamental property, since it boils down to how photons, electrons and speed of light interact). And consciousness is by definition a true fundamental property, since it's literally from what all our (or should I say MY?) posterior understandings of the world of empirical evidence arise from - materialist/physicalist reality is merely a consistently and stably repeating pattern in the world of conscious experience, so yeah, consciousness preceeds the brain, not vice versa. If we try being consistent while trying to be strictly materialist/physicalist, we inevitably reach absurd conclusions such as "consciousness doesn't exist since it can't be observed scientifically" (hard eliminativism) or "consciousness is just an illusion made up by philosophical zombie meatbags to function properly" (illusionism, which is basically a subset of hard eliminativism). Btw, my source: trust me bro.+ 1

⬆ upvote 0↩ reply 1

𓀐 @GN*-*eP2: >hard problem god of the gaps >orchor never really understood why zealots find so much solace in this. most likely because they do not understand the implications methinks what orchor "says" is that brain might contain some quantum process. nobody really knows if, or why, or what it does, for (You). just refuge for zealots because they have some leeway in painting on that canvas. even if, could simply be added to a "machine". >there are literally no examples of emergent "true" properties what a load of crap. non-sentient life is, for example. quite wondrous. ants, their behavior as a group. viruses. certain chemicals locked in a way start doing shit in animals. cordyceps in insects. superconductivity. holy shit >And consciousness is by definition a true fundamental property it isn't. it would benefit your belief system if it were, but it isn't, and nothing will ever change that. religion is going away. >consciousness preceeds the brain, not vice versa nonsense. there's nothing that isn't material in this world, mediated by particles and their interactions. you could say your schizophrenic condition is not material but that's merely an emergent phenomenon based on the fucked up structure of your brain. it's fucked up sentience. still emergent. >"consciousness doesn't exist since it can't be observed scientifically" it can, in yourself. why we're having this conversation. the issue is different to any other scientific issue, we cannot prove it to eachother, only observe it ourselves. you do not even understand what the core issue is here.+

⬆ upvote 0↩ reply 0

𓀐 @a-Aa+9Y8: Microtubule anon here. I believe that any attempt at solving the hard problem can only arise from "trust me bro", it's just if asked about what's the most likely physicalist anchor for determining if something is conscious or not would be, I find microtubules the best candidate. Still doesn't change the fact that hard problem by definition goes beyond the epistemic horizon of the scientific method.+

⬆ upvote 0↩ reply 0

𓀐 @xeyHphif: >When AI becomes sophisticated (sentient) enough to the point of being able to create its own soulful art. If a machine had its own mind and its own perceptions, as opposed to a statistical model trying to ape humanity, how would you know its "art" is "soulful"?+

⬆ upvote 0↩ reply 0

𓀐 @9A?KzmSu: It's amusing how there's not one coherent, non-circular argument against roombas being conscious. Also what if we're living in a simulation?+

⬆ upvote 0↩ reply 0