I've read so many versions of this idea over the last few years and I don't understand what the point is. It's either obviously true (humans have this thing we call consciousness and by definition it's specific to humans or organic minds so therefore silicon can't have it) and therefore not worth saying or it needs to be said in some falsifiable way "an AI would be called conscious if it could fulfil conditions A, B, C".

But usually it's some long manifesto about loving a baby or experiencing hunger or something. I'm not saying I disagree or that I believe that AI is "conscious" I'm just not sure what the point of the debate is and what this word 'consciousness' (that philosophers have anyway been debating the meaning of for centuries) has to add to the AI discourse.

People are allowed to express themselves you know? And do so without a point too. And good old Philosophers like Hegel say Consiousness(of self) requires dialogue between two beings. Not just one. And quite frequently that dialogue starts with contact between the two that goes - what the fuck are you anyway I thought I was at the center of the universe(especially in western thought) - which usually leads to who am I then?

Putting it simply:

* Your AI girlfriend isn't real

* "You're correct" is a statistical occurrence, not evidence that you are or are not correct.

* Llm can do "bad things" because it just does things. Statistics has no right or wrong.

[dead]