> However, this parrot can't hope to emulate any serious form of consciousness, and therefore can't ever be capable of intelligent judgment

I often hear this asserted, but never with any actual justification.

Why can it not?

▲

famouswaffles an hour ago | parent | next [-]

Because people who say this are always begging the question. They're already at the conclusion and work backwards to justify it.

▲

dimbletimbers 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

It has been generally agreed since at least Plato that it’s up to people making a positive assertion to present evidence, not up to skeptics to prove it’s not possible. N.B. Russell’s Teapot Analogy.

You have to prove it is/can be conscious, not the other way around.

▲

djleni an hour ago | parent | next [-]

I understand this but what happens when you apply this to humans? Can you prove humans are conscious?

We don’t have a precise enough definition to do either.

▲

hbcdbff an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-]

I don’t agree.

The author is trying to positively assert that it’s impossible that AIs have consciousness.

I think you’d be hard pressed to find even the most ardent of AI proponents claiming AIs are _definitely_ conscious. They are almost always claiming something weaker, which is that it is possible.

▲

TuringTest an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-]

The original article said that not having a consciousness makes the AI model uncapable of intelligent judgment, so in this case it's fair to ask those who are asserting such connection to prove their point.

▲

esikich an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Ok, prove that only meat can be conscious.

	▲	card_zero 42 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		That is not the argument. The argument isn't "AI is impossible", it's "the thing you call AI doesn't actually have intelligence." Of course we can't explain what intelligence is, but neither can you, so the impasse is where the advocates say "intelligence is what this weird annoying thing we made does" and everybody else says "no it isn't, that's no kind of explanation".

▲

AnotherGoodName an hour ago | parent | prev [-]

It's the opposite isn't it? You assume consciousness in other things which may have it. Higher order animals, other humans etc.

Imagine if we actually demanded that you prove your consciousness before we believe you.

▲

iugtmkbdfil834 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

I am going to say it with only a trace of mild bemusement in no specific order:

- careers, nay, nearly whole industries may ride on that being the case - classifying it as conscious intelligence opens a range of ethical questions no thinking, conscious, intelligent ( and likely non-evil ) life-form would want to comprehend - being able to ascribe judgment to it without intelligence undermines a lot of what we do on a daily basis and puts into question what it is that makes us human - I am saying this part in the nicest possible way: hardcore cope of biblical proportions, where seemingly conscious, intelligent individual, who makes an argument for lack of consciousness manages to ( in the same sentence! ) to anthropomorphize the parrot and imbue it with hope - average human tendency to fear the unknown

▲

verdverm 23 minutes ago | parent | prev [-]

Consciousness is a first person experience, that's why this debate always degrades.

On the other hand, they have no biology or hormones, no real experience with birth, life, death, joy, fear, empathy... that is all simulated emotion through language. They will never know what it's like to be horny or hungry and the satisfaction that comes with fulfilling those.