An LLM is a series of immutable nodes that pass results on to the next series of nodes until an output is generated, a functionality that could be perfectly imitated with a very large number of people seeing a series of values passed to them from other people, doing a bit of rigidly defined basic math with them, and passing it on to the next set of people who play the part of the next set of nodes.
The fact that these nodes are immutable, have no persistent state, and only process information in one direction (input to output, and no more) means that an LLM has no persistence of experience. You could potentially argue that the information, as it exists, is a form of fleeting consciousness, but it would be so incredibly alien compared to the lived experience of humans that it would be impossible to relate to in any meaningful way - and it would also mean that every time an LLM is run, the consciousness is created and destroyed for every single word that it outputs… unless you can somehow argue that the consciousness is contained in the set of tokens that gets fed back into the LLM with each word it outputs, which would also mean that any string of text is the equivalent of latent consciousness, which is patently absurd.
You could potentially argue that the information, as it exists, is a form of fleeting consciousness, but it would be so incredibly alien compared to the lived experience of humans that it would be impossible to relate to in any meaningful way
Curiously, one of the approaches to the consciousness, and a more Zen-ish one, is that clinging to a persistent ‘self’ is erroneous and it’s better seen as a process rather than an entity. Granted, it still assumes a ‘self’ that is changed by each passing experience.
Consciousness is a discrete phenomenon that exists, and not all things are conscious. A piece of paper, for example, is not conscious.
A string of text can be used to represent any type of data. It would mean that every piece of data is a consciousness, which - if we assume item 1 to be true - cannot be true, as a piece of paper (which is not conscious) can hold the data.
It’s a discrete phenomenon because my consciousness is not your consciousness. I do not have two consciousnesses at once. Each consciousness is separate from any others - hence, discrete.
As for how I know another person is conscious?
Consciousness is a documented phenomenon that has existed since before I existed. My lived experience matches documented evidence of consciousness, thus I can conclude that, by and large, humans are conscious, although I cannot determine directly whether or not another person is conscious without depending on their testament. They could be a philosophical zombie - a thing that has all outward behaviors of a conscious being without having a consciousness, including lying about having a conscious experience - but the likelihood is low.
That’s not what I understood from the Wikipedia article. In any case, an LLM doesn’t look up responses from a table.
An LLM is a series of immutable nodes that pass results on to the next series of nodes until an output is generated, a functionality that could be perfectly imitated with a very large number of people seeing a series of values passed to them from other people, doing a bit of rigidly defined basic math with them, and passing it on to the next set of people who play the part of the next set of nodes.
The fact that these nodes are immutable, have no persistent state, and only process information in one direction (input to output, and no more) means that an LLM has no persistence of experience. You could potentially argue that the information, as it exists, is a form of fleeting consciousness, but it would be so incredibly alien compared to the lived experience of humans that it would be impossible to relate to in any meaningful way - and it would also mean that every time an LLM is run, the consciousness is created and destroyed for every single word that it outputs… unless you can somehow argue that the consciousness is contained in the set of tokens that gets fed back into the LLM with each word it outputs, which would also mean that any string of text is the equivalent of latent consciousness, which is patently absurd.
Curiously, one of the approaches to the consciousness, and a more Zen-ish one, is that clinging to a persistent ‘self’ is erroneous and it’s better seen as a process rather than an entity. Granted, it still assumes a ‘self’ that is changed by each passing experience.
How can you call it absurd when we have no idea what makes something conscious in the first place?
Because:
Consciousness is a discrete phenomenon that exists, and not all things are conscious. A piece of paper, for example, is not conscious.
A string of text can be used to represent any type of data. It would mean that every piece of data is a consciousness, which - if we assume item 1 to be true - cannot be true, as a piece of paper (which is not conscious) can hold the data.
How did you determine that it’s a discrete phenomenon? If I present you with another person, how do you determine if they’re conscious or not?
It’s a discrete phenomenon because my consciousness is not your consciousness. I do not have two consciousnesses at once. Each consciousness is separate from any others - hence, discrete.
As for how I know another person is conscious?
Consciousness is a documented phenomenon that has existed since before I existed. My lived experience matches documented evidence of consciousness, thus I can conclude that, by and large, humans are conscious, although I cannot determine directly whether or not another person is conscious without depending on their testament. They could be a philosophical zombie - a thing that has all outward behaviors of a conscious being without having a consciousness, including lying about having a conscious experience - but the likelihood is low.