I can define “LLM”, “a painting”, and “alive”. Those definitions don’t require assumptions or gut feelings. We could easily come up with a set of questions and an answer key that will tell you if a particular thing is an LLM or a painting and whether or not it’s alive.
I’m not aware of any such definition of conscious, nor am I aware of any universal tests of consciousness. Without that definition, it’s like Ebert claiming that, “Video games can never be art”.
Absolutely everything requires assumptions, even our most objective and “laws of the universe” type observations rely on sets of axioms or first principles that must simply be accepted as true-though-unprovable if we are going to get anyplace at all even in math and the hard sciences let alone philosophy or social sciences.
I think the reason we can’t define consciousness beyond intuitive or vague descriptions is because it exists outside the realm of physics and science altogether. This in itself makes some people very uncomfortable, because they don’t like thinking about or believing in things they cannot measure or control, but that doesn’t make it any less real.
But yeah, given that an LLM is very much measurable and exists within the physical realm, it’s relatively easy to argue that such technology cannot achieve conscious capability.
I think the reason we can’t define consciousness beyond intuitive or vague descriptions is because it exists outside the realm of physics and science altogether. This in itself makes some people very uncomfortable, because they don’t like thinking about or believing in things they cannot measure or control, but that doesn’t make it any less real.
I’ve always had the opposite take. I think that we’ll eventually discover that consciousness is so explainable within the realm of physics that our understanding of how it works will make people very uncomfortable… because it will completely invalidate all of the things we’ve always thought made us “special”, like a notion of free will.
I’m sorry, but that article just isn’t very compelling. They seem to be framing the question of “is there free will” as a sort of Pascal’s Wager, which is, umm… certainly a strange choice, and one that doesn’t really justify itself in the end.
The author also makes a few false assertions and just generally seems to misunderstand what the debate over free will is even about.
I can define “LLM”, “a painting”, and “alive”. Those definitions don’t require assumptions or gut feelings. We could easily come up with a set of questions and an answer key that will tell you if a particular thing is an LLM or a painting and whether or not it’s alive.
I’m not aware of any such definition of conscious, nor am I aware of any universal tests of consciousness. Without that definition, it’s like Ebert claiming that, “Video games can never be art”.
Absolutely everything requires assumptions, even our most objective and “laws of the universe” type observations rely on sets of axioms or first principles that must simply be accepted as true-though-unprovable if we are going to get anyplace at all even in math and the hard sciences let alone philosophy or social sciences.
I think the reason we can’t define consciousness beyond intuitive or vague descriptions is because it exists outside the realm of physics and science altogether. This in itself makes some people very uncomfortable, because they don’t like thinking about or believing in things they cannot measure or control, but that doesn’t make it any less real.
But yeah, given that an LLM is very much measurable and exists within the physical realm, it’s relatively easy to argue that such technology cannot achieve conscious capability.
I’ve always had the opposite take. I think that we’ll eventually discover that consciousness is so explainable within the realm of physics that our understanding of how it works will make people very uncomfortable… because it will completely invalidate all of the things we’ve always thought made us “special”, like a notion of free will.
:)
https://philosophyofbalance.com/blog/free-will-you-better-believe-it/
I’m sorry, but that article just isn’t very compelling. They seem to be framing the question of “is there free will” as a sort of Pascal’s Wager, which is, umm… certainly a strange choice, and one that doesn’t really justify itself in the end.
The author also makes a few false assertions and just generally seems to misunderstand what the debate over free will is even about.