Artificial-intelligence systems such as large language models (LLMs) can exhibit behaviour that seems strikingly intelligent. This has led many people, including some experts, to wonder whether these systems could have some form of consciousness — the capacity for subjective experience. However, we think that existing AI systems are not conscious, and that, along current trajectories of development, they are not likely to become conscious. Greater clarity about whether AI could become consciousness will be crucial as society grapples with the challenges posed by this increasingly powerful technology.

  • one_old_coder@piefed.social
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    6
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    4 days ago

    Current AI is not conscious because it’s an .exe file and a big database. Why do we need to always debate this?

    • weps@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      4 days ago

      because you can’t prove that it is not conscious

      just like you can not prove that a person is conscious

      There’s an accepted way to kill or not kill a person based on the way the brain reacts when you zap it with electricity but that doesn’t prove consciousness

    • DrakeAlbrecht@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      4 days ago

      If AGI ever happens, it will be an executable (or a number of executables) with something closely resembling a database, because that’s the only way an architecture built on symbolic logic can operate.

    • stoicmaverick@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      4 days ago

      Your “consciousness” is just an ephemeral electrical process in the jello of your brain that can’t even reinitialize from cold. Why is that your holdup?

    • BJW@lemmus.org
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      4 days ago

      LOL. “EXE file and a big database.”. That’s the most gross oversimplification I’ve seen since life was described as “bags of meat that do random things.”

    • Artisian@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      4 days ago

      (Also now true of fruit flies! So feel free to kill them all, they have no experiences.)

      • ferret@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        9
        ·
        4 days ago

        That is a pretty huge misunderstanding of what the fruit fly thing was. Researchers mapped how many neurons they had and which interacted with which others, but not the strength of those interactions or even how the interactions worked. People on the internet used this blank mapping as the “structure” for existing ML technologies and trained them to do random things. No actual fruit flies were simulated, and we are still a long long way from actually attempting that.

        • Artisian@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          4 days ago

          Thank you! Tho perhaps to the spirit of my point: nobody is seriously claiming we can’t simulate this with a quantum computer someday, right?

          • ferret@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            4
            ·
            4 days ago

            We really don’t know enough about how brains work or how quantum computers will scale to even speculate on that