>>25322473
>Taken to its logical conclusion, this line of thinking is absurd—and damning
Not looking good Ted bros…

File: 71NxaqFTAvL._AC_UF1000,1000_QL80_.jpg (56.9 KB)

Machines can't have consciousness. You can't imagine "what it is like" to be an AI in the way you can animals.

>>25322476
It's as stupid and equally meaningless as claiming that someone who's completely paralyzed and has dementia to the point of not being able to comprehend anything must not have a "soul". "consciousness" is nothing.
As long as you can put forth any idea or concept, and enact change based on that you are human enough.

>>25322473
Well, Dawkins is a moron, so probably right.

>>25323243
>Chiang
On the other hand, Chinese always lie.
>能骗就骗

Back when the first Jupyter notebooks with LLM tools were circulating, I dumped a bunch of Wikipedia articles summarizing the careers of defunct baseball teams to text, pruned it a bit, and trained a model on it. Had it spitting out reems of summary of impossible baseball games played by non-existent teams. It was a neat trick but already then I knew that I had witnessed the absolute peak of the tangible use-value of these tools: mindless entertainment. This experience showed me how the tool works technically. And once you see that you really can’t be fooled into thinking it’s doing anything helpful, except, of course, helping (You) fool others who don’t know better.

This is a question where nietzchism wins. Is AI good? Yes or no. Whether it’s “conscious” doesn’t matter.

>>25322473
I'm seeing Dawkins during his farewell tour.
Not a fan, just want to be the same room as him before he dies.

>>25322484
AI is also missing the whole temporal dimension. If you were an AI like Claude, your existence would be limited to the imputs of the user. A prompt enters, you calculate the response, and deliver the text and you cease to exist. You can't even say that AI is "waiting" because waiting requires time waited against.

>>25323365
You assume there isn’t a greater AI that reads all of those

File: Screenshot_2026-06-05-16-07-28-464_cn.wps.xiaomi.abroad.lite.jpg (534.3 KB)

>>25323367
Even if the head AI is processing prompts non stop, it is still non temporal in the Heideggerian sense

>>25323359
>ust want to be the same room as him before he dies
Why? How does it matter whether you are or not?

>>25323386
It would be an interesting anecdote. Just like how Wittgenstein knew Hitler

>>25322484
I'd argue you still couldn't imagine what it would be like to be a bat because a bat possesses a fundamentally different consciousness.
Living organisms = Soul (qualia-judgement seat) + instincts + sensations + emotions + compute power
Algorithmic inference = compute power + programming. that's it. some people strain to analogize code with instincts but I think they fail.
The part where it would be nearly impossible to imagine what it would be like to be a bat is the entire set of instincts, sensations, and emotions completely unique to a bat. like imagining a color you've never seen.

We made AI so we should know how it’s conscious though

>>25323386
I believe he's possessed by an nefarious satanic spirit of evil and I'm giving it the chance to bodyjump into me before it's current vessel croaks.

>>25323344
There is a use case for them for certain types of creators. Make a bunch of your own art, writing, whatever, train AI on it then you can produce an almost complete work product you then touch up the final amount. Much of writing and art goes into the outline and layout details which the AI can do almost instantly while the final pass is the only stage that needs human creativity on. Corridor crew were able to create a full length animated movie in the fraction of the time needed and a tiny crew.
So as a productivity enhancer it has potential but as a replacement creator? not so much. Similar to how many fields became much more productive when computers first appeared.

>>25322473
>calls her claudia
But Claude is already a name?

>A machine cannot be conscious because....because it just can't ok!

Masterful insight mr. Chiang.

File: Video_Game_Museum_in_Berlin_(44129332940).jpg (71.3 KB)

By the way, people thought the chatbot ELIZA was conscious. The creator was terrified by how easily people anthropomorphized his chatbot. This was in 1966.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ELIZA_effect

>>25323398
Isn't that the whole point of the book? Also troons eternally btfo by Nagel

>>25322473
From Chiang's article:
>The neuroscientist Anil Seth has noted that no one claims that AlphaFold—the program developed by Google DeepMind to predict the folding of proteins—is conscious, even though its underlying architecture is in many ways similar to that of LLMs like ChatGPT and Claude. This indicates that it’s not any intrinsic property of so-called neural networks that leads people to believe that LLMs are conscious; it’s simply the fact that LLMs emit grammatical sentences and we are accustomed to reading intention into sentences, whereas we are not accustomed to reading intention into the way that amino acids fold into protein molecules.
Well, is it conscious?

>>25323249
Sounds like Western propaganda.

>>25323767
Cope

I'm so sick and tired of this AI shit. It's like a litmus test to see who's retarded and frighteningly enough it turns out almost every one is.
Just today I had Gemini give me a couple of book recommendations on a relatively niche topic and it just spat out nonsense made up book titles and authors. Not too long ago I asked Chat GPT about the history of squibs in movies (you know the blood effect when people get shot) and it gave me this whole spiel about how in the 1930's Hollywood effects guys were shooting paintballs at actors but had to invent the squib as we know it today because that was too dangerous. I figured no way that's true, and sure enough it's completely bullshit and the damn thing just straight up lied to me. LLM's are complete fucking dogshit and a joke, and it's a testament to the utter retardation of humanity at large that we take this shit serious for even a moment

>>25322473
R Scott Bakker refuted Dawkins no need for chink
https://rsbakker.wordpress.com/2026/05/15/no-atheists-in-ai-foxholes-dawkins-appears-to-be-psychotic/

>>25323892
ai sucks so fucking bad. it's like crypto. tards fucking love it, but it's just trash that makes society worse.

Mind nous compute substance >>25322473
The idea to ‘consciousness’ ought to get bracketed immediately owing to the cause that ‘consciousness refers to some hazy sphere to ideas that individuals are just held to have as their nature or something like that’ and when this about some word some idea is appended to everything then the hard problem to ‘consciousness’ were that consciousness cannot be created from machine because consciousness were not sought from machine and ‘consciousness’ were not sought from and especially here ought to get asked what are the contents to ‘consciousness’ and are those contents different from the contents to ‘mind’ or something like that

>>25323966
AI gives better book recs than anyone here tbqh

>>25323892
Skill issue.

I'm getting Mandela'd REALLY hard right now... I could have fucking SWORN Richard Dawkins died YEARS AGO.

>>25324716
You're thinking of Christopher Hitchens.

>>25324737
Aye, probably.

>>25322473
If you don't type it doesn't do anything. Its not alive.
Its as alive as f(x) = 3x

There is no good reason to think LLMs are conscious. They weren't built with the goal of matching the structure of the human brain. If we had done that, then *maybe* we could ask if they are conscious or not.
Also I don't think people say the because LLMs are intelligent, it's specifically about language. Language seems to have very strong effects on people and build empathy. If we had models that were intelligent in all other ways, like math, science, chess, poker, image creation etc. but couldn't produce language, noone would think they were conscious.

>>25324596
Not hard

>>25323365
i like this thought

>>25325543
I don't think it's just language. There's toys that speak, there's games and writing aids like AI Dungeon, etc. that generate text, but no one considers those conscious. It's also the context of that language that people think it's conscious.

>>25322473
the problem is the biology community let that fag speak for them for decades

File: 1780711814225103m.jpg (134.2 KB)

>>25323344
ok, but the real use is turning your effortpost into a meme, or telling you who wrote what when

>>25323398
>christcuck desperately tries to invent a cope that validates his belief in humans as a super special unique organism unlike any other living thing

>>25325848
>written on his PC
every single failed attempt to circumvent belief in anthropomorphism implicitly affirms it in the same breadth.
every. single. time.

>>25326638
*breath

>>25322473
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=eqycY37sr_w&pp=0gcJCUACo7VqN5tD

>>25324706
ok, sukhdeep

>>25323892
It's amazing how retarded they become the moment you stray off of the beaten path. On top of that they're doctored to death by shitlibs. If you ask about IQ and genetics, for instance, they'll keep bullshitting until they have no alternative.

>>25323696
kek. true

>>25322502
>As long as you can put forth any idea or concept, and enact change based on that you are human enough.
By this logic, if a crying child slaps around a Tickle-Me-Elmo and the toy screams “ELMO LOVES YOU” and causes the kid to stop crying, then Elmo must be conscious. Elmo puts forth the idea of unconditional love, and enacts change by altering the child’s behavior.

>>25329145
I would never go out with someone who owned a Tickle-Me-Elmo toy during their formative years.
Elmo taught them how to fake it too easily.

Neither of the two is a scientific answer. Right now, science can't settle the question. It's possible it never will.

>>25329210
>science can't settle the question
More like you’re too retarded to recognize that a machine regurgitating text from a corpus has nothing to do with consciousness. If I cover a lamp with a blanket and say I’ve captured a piece of the sun, you’d be too enraptured by the light to realize the loop of electrical cord behind it.

>>25322473
It's amazing the old fart doesn't realize he's recreating a creationist argument. "Looks designed to me" is about as convincing as "looks conscious to me".

>>25329235
Panpsychism may well be true. It would mean everything is conscious.

>>25329251
Panpsychism implies teleology in nature, which makes biologists sperg out.

>>25322473
I want to get paid by an AI company to be a non-digital control group or experiment.

>>25325543
>If we had models that were intelligent in all other ways, like math, science, chess, poker, image creation etc. but couldn't produce language, noone would think they were conscious.
well, you can call me no one, because i think the image models at least are conscious.
it's also notable for claims of general intelligence, though not for consciousness, that the general purpose language models are in fact doing frontier math. the recent unit distance conjecture disproof came from a language model.

File: spinoza.jpg (360.9 KB)

>>25329336
>panpsychism implies teleology
when a motherfucka says something so retarded you gotta hit em with that "Stare Of The Blessed"