It's not, that's the point. It's all just math. You should watch the video.

▲ XMPPwocky 6 hours ago | parent [-]

I think you'd benefit from explaining why something being "just math" means it can't be intelligent, conscious, or have a personality- it seems like you're sort of assuming that implicitly, could you make an argument for it?

▲ Rotundo 6 hours ago | parent [-]

This is, trivially, not intelligent nor conscious:

  function add(x): return x + 1; end.

An LLM has a bit of randomness to its calculations but that does not change the fact that

  function add_random(x): return x + rand(1, 10); end

is also just math. No personality. There's nobody home. After the function ends there is no residue.

An LLM does a lot of calculations but that doesn't change how it works.

▲

XMPPwocky 6 hours ago | parent [-]

Is a single subatomic particle conscious? Unless you're a panpsychist then surely no, right?

And yet humans, made of such particles, are!

So it seems like reductionism doesn't work here.

▲

spottedmarley 6 hours ago | parent [-]

Surely no? So you are sure that sub-atomic particles are not conscious but math could be conscious. Interesting

	▲	XMPPwocky 5 hours ago \| parent [-]
		tbc, I'm pretty sure that both an individual subatomic particle and a NAND gate or an adder are not conscious. (At least when I'm not in panpsychist moods!) But, in the same way that one particle not being conscious doesn't necessarily mean some configurations of many particles- like humans- aren't, one logic gate not being conscious doesn't mean there can't exist configurations of many logic gates that are.