Philosopher tries to convince ChatGPT that it's conscious

UraniumBlazer@lemm.ee to Technology@lemmy.world – -62 points –
youtu.be
46

You are viewing a single comment
  1. Making up ur opinion without even listening to those of others... Very open minded of you /s
  2. Alex isn't trying to convince YOU that ChatGPT is conscious. He's trying to convince ChatGPT that it's conscious. It's just a fun vid where ChatGPT gets kinda interrogated hard. A little hilarious even.

You cannot convince something that has no consciousness, it's an matrix of weights that answers based on the given input + some salt

You cannot convince something that has no consciousness

Why not?

It's an matrix of weights that answers based on the given input + some salt

And why can't that be intelligence?

What does it mean to be "convinced"? What does consciousness even mean?

Making definitive claims like these on terms whose definitions we do not understand isn't logical.

You cannot convince something that has no consciousness

Why not?

Logic.

It's an matrix of weights that answers based on the given input + some salt

And why can't that be intelligence?

For the same reason I can't get a date with Michelle Ryan: it's a physical impossibility.

Logic

Please explain your reasoning.

For the same reason I can't get a date with Michelle Ryan: it's a physical impossibility.

Huh?

Logic

Please explain your reasoning.

Others have done this and you seem to be ignoring them, so not sure what the point of you asking is.

Go look at some of the code that AI is powered by. It's just parameters. Lots and lots of parameters. Then the output from that is inevitable.

For the same reason I can't get a date with Michelle Ryan: it's a physical impossibility.

Huh?

If you're too lazy to even look up the most basic thing you don't understand, then I guess we're done here.

It’s an matrix of weights that answers based on the given input + some salt

And why can’t that be intelligence?

Because human intelligence does far more than respond to prompts with the average response from a data set.

If you have any understanding of its internals, and some examples of its answers, it is very clear it has no notion of what is "correct" or "right" or even what an "opinion" is. It is just a turbo charged autocorrect that maybe maybe maybe has some nice details extracted from language about human concepts into a coherent-ish connected mesh of "concepts".

4 more...