I’m pulling the “twitter is a microblog” rule even though twitter is pretty mega now, hope that’s ok.

  • yeahiknow3@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    4
    ·
    edit-2
    10 days ago

    This is called the problem of other minds. Of course I can’t be certain about the consciousness of others. I can only be certain about my own.

    We do have a way of measuring the correlates of consciousness. But we have no clue how to detect the presence of subjective experience using quantitative methods.

    Philosophy departments (which is where any discovery on this front will originate) are heavily defunded. If you’re waiting for physicists or biologists to figure this out you’ll be waiting even longer.

    • FaceDeer@fedia.io
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      10 days ago

      Exactly, which is why it’s IMO a bit presumptuous to say with confidence that humans are conscious while LLMs are categorically not conscious. We don’t even really know what that means.

      I don’t personally think LLMs are conscious, at least not yet or not to the same degree that humans are. But that’s purely based on vibe, it’s not something I can know. We need to figure out what consciousness really is and how to measure it before we can say we know this with any certainty.

      • yeahiknow3@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        9 days ago

        It is not presumptuous at all. Inference to the best explanation is how you know (almost) anything.

        1. This table isn’t conscious.

        This is my justified belief. No inferential claim is guaranteed and all objective claims are inferential (which is why scientific claims aren’t absolute).

        That said, I have strong reasons to think that tables aren’t conscious. They might be, but I’m epistemically compelled to believe otherwise.

        1. ChatGPT isn’t conscious.

        Ditto. It would be irrational for me to believe otherwise given the strong evidence.

        That you “don’t know for sure” is an implied disclaimer for every scientific claim.

        If the evidence is ambiguous, we say so. Regarding ChatGPT, the evidence is unambiguous.

        1. I am conscious.

        This is a non-inferential claim that I know through direct contact with reality. It is a priori.

        • Micromot@piefed.social
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          10 days ago

          This is pretty much what Descartes meant with “cogito ergo sum”. The only thing you can be sure are 100% real, are your thoughts

          • psycotica0@lemmy.ca
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            10 days ago

            Right, your own thoughts. So I can be sure I’m conscious, but you commenting “I know I’m conscious” on here doesn’t tell me anything about your consciousness. The robot can do that, and does.

            • Micromot@piefed.social
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              10 days ago

              This is just the stuff you do in philosophy class. There is no right answer really. You can never be sure of something being conscious or even be sure that it exists in reality. We can just react to what we perceive.