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 39 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.