An LLM is just a Transformer - a statistical predictor. Don't be confused by the fact it talks like a human - it is a software function that is designed to copy human training samples.

Maybe one day we'll build an artificial brain or embodied artificial animal with the requisite moving parts to be conscious, have emotions, etc, but that's probably at least 50 years away, even if it were being pursued; and it may turn out to be one of those sci-fi future ideas like the Jetson's world of flying cars that never materializes because its impractical and there is no real demand.

If people are willing to think that an LLM is conscious, then why would anyone spend billions/trillions of dollars to build an AI that actually is conscious? What would be the point?

▲

fc417fc802 42 minutes ago | parent [-]

> with the requisite moving parts

Could you elaborate on exactly what those are, though? Because if you're going to claim that a vaguely transformer shaped ML model categorically cannot be so does that not inherently require proof of what can?

You can't even prove that the rocks in my backyard aren't conscious.

▲

HarHarVeryFunny 33 minutes ago | parent [-]

> You can't even prove that the rocks in my backyard aren't conscious.

Sure I can, but that's because I have a well developed theory of what consciousness is, and the fact that you are entertaining the possibility of rocks being conscious tells me that you don't.

If everything is conscious, including my coffee cup and the toast I had for breakfast, then I guess we can cross consciousness off the list of things we need to worry about in terms of AI rights.

And no, I don't want to discuss what consciousness is. Maybe there is a thread for that somewhere else, but don't look for me there either.

	▲	fc417fc802 18 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		[dead]