We are not fundamentally different. Chemical reactions are just math.

Well, (in our current understanding) yes, but there may be underlying aspects of physics and the universe that we do not understand that could be the reason consciousness kicks in. It could turn out that LLMs do work similarly to how humans think, but as an abstracted system it does not have the low level requirements for consciousness.

▲

vidarh 7 hours ago | parent | next [-]

We do not know what the "low level requirements for consciousness" are.

We do not know how to measure whether consciousness is present in an entity - even other humans - or whether it is just mimicry, nor whether there is a distinction between the two.

▲

baggy_trough 7 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

> it does not have the low level requirements for consciousness.

What is the evidence for this?

	▲	rellfy 7 hours ago \| parent [-]
		I didn’t mean it as fact. “Could turn out that …”

▲

ekianjo 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Amusing statement since we are far from being able to understand chemical reactions in depth. Most of our knowledge in chemistry is empirical. Nothing like math.

▲

petters an hour ago | parent [-]

We have a very good idea of all math behind chemistry. But the equations are very difficult to solve.

	▲	ekianjo 2 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		We are not talking about the same thing. Not all chemical reactions are predictable like math is. Organic chemistry is full of lucky findings. Just look at how catalysts are discovered.

▲

slopinthebag 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

No, math is a tool that we can use to describe something more fundamental. Don't mistake the map for the territory!