Nah, it "betrays" an awareness of something implicitly obvious: All the software/machines we might discuss are ones from ~2026, rather than ones from ~2226.

Similarly, "pets can't do my taxes" is a reasonable statement, because it is implicit that it doesn't include hundreds of years of genetic engineering and cyborg implants.

▲

hardbass 3 hours ago | parent [-]

Pets can't speak human languages or do thinking on logic or natural logic. Current AI's can. Its a very bad example. People saying "current archs are limited" are much less than people outright claiming "software therefore not conscious". And I haven't yet seen any proof why the current AI's already don't have some consciousness or not.

▲

Terr_ 2 hours ago | parent [-]

> Pets can't speak [...] Current AI's can. It's a very bad example.

You've misunderstood the comparison analogy. It's showing two situations where implicit timeframes are important when people talk about what is "true", where the second one makes the importance extra-obvious.

"Pets doing taxes" could just as easily be swapped with "cold fusion generator in your garage" or "rocket-ship for personal commutes."

If you're trying to figure out how LLM weights are like the weights of a rocket payload, then you're going in the wrong direction.

	▲	hardbass an hour ago \| parent [-]
		I get what you were trying to say, I still disagree, its an open question and I feel existing LLMs already might possess some consciousness. I cannot prove it of course so I am not saying so definitively. You haven't given any disproof of the same either. Those who think future systems could have consciousness would explicitly say so, indeed I have talked with a few who clarified as such. On the other hand I have seen a lot of statements that simply state without further clarification "software therefore not conscious".