I mean, there is obviously a point - we can argue whether that point is 20 weeks in, 40 weeks in, or after birth - but there is obviously a point where a human being goes from a collection of cells to a conscious being. I don't really see a need to answer this precisely to be able to say that a token predictor is not conscious?

▲

Tadpole9181 2 hours ago | parent [-]

No, the point is we literally cannot meaningfully argue that.

There is no actual definition of consciousness and there is no way to test it's existence. Let alone understanding the properties of consciousness, such as if it's binary or a gradient; or if it requires a meat substrate or not; and why would that possibly matter since meat is just a lot of the same stuff but highly processed and wet? A solipsist may not even believe you are conscious, despite being made of similar meat.

No matter how much you want to hand-wave it, there's absolutely nothing "obvious" about it. Many have a preconceived notion and are simply asserting it as undeniable fact.

	▲	gambiting an hour ago \| parent [-]
		Why even have this discussion, if your entire point is that consciousness cannot possibly be defined? Like, what are we actually talking about? To me, consciousness = aware of own existence. A machine predicting tokens is not aware of its own existence, and I don't think that's even a particularly controversial take on what it does and how it works. We can start talking about consciousness in fetuses but again, those have an obvious point where they are conscious, while a machine does not. >>A solipsist may not even believe you are conscious, despite being made of similar meat. Well and they would be obviously wrong in their belief? >>there's absolutely nothing "obvious" about it How so? Or rather - to you? Because if so, then that's fine, you can choose a position from where its not obvious, to me it's not even slightly ambiguous.