2026-10-22 21:31 UTC
Oh, I thought you might have something new to say. If you’re just using the normal definition and not bringing any sort of testability (which imo is impossible) or new arguments, how exactly does the common definition prove anything must be non-conscious? That seems like the main claim of your comment, yet it seems like an unsupported assertion; if the common definition of consciousness could easily prove things not to be conscious as you seem to imply, this discussion would not be happening at all.
Replies (1)
-
@TootGuitar@sh.itjust.works 2026-10-22 22:31
From Wikipedia: The Cambridge English Dictionary defines consciousness as “the state of being awake, thinking, and knowing what is happening around you”, as well as “the state of understanding and realizing something”. Most of these are trivially easy to test (not sure why you think that’s impossible). And LLMs have none of those properties. Later: “The having of perceptions, thoughts, and feelings; awareness.” Again, LLMs have none of these things. They simply generate a probable natural-language response based on their training, deterministically. Feel free to do further research on your own if you’re interested.