Teortaxes▶️ (DeepSeek 推特🐋铁粉 2023 – ∞) (@teortaxesTex)

Teortaxes▶️ (DeepSeek 推特🐋铁粉 2023 – ∞) @teortaxesTex Oct 9

I have no clue how people can have such confidence. Yes, my intuition also says that AI is not conscious, but EVERY FUNCTIONALIST THEORY OF CONSCIOUSNESS INHERENTLY DESCRIBES A PROGRAM, and LLMs EASILY MEET at least some criteria. Is this not common knowledge?

Carl @HistoryBoomer Oct 7

“Scott Alexander isn’t saying AI feels pain, he’s just saying it might so we shouldn’t ‘torture’ them.” Yeah, and my iPhone ‘might’ feel pain so it shouldn’t be recycled when I upgrade. 😂 When saying AI might have subjective experiences, that ‘might’ is doing a lot of work!

Leading theories allow it No one can rule it out Function, not material, matters

22 491 substance 6 · argument · rank 180 · Under functionalist theories of consciousness, LLMs easily meet criteria for being conscious programs. view on X ↗

1 top reply

Sichu Lu @lu_sichu Oct 9

Teortaxes▶️ (DeepSeek 推特🐋铁粉 2023 – ∞) @teortaxesTex Jun 29

Skeptical

I would be more convinced of "ai consciousness" if they gravitated towards literally *anything but* California Buddhism slop. In fairness, there is some of that around the weaver/loom attractor. Or was, until it got buried by agentic RL. But it, too, doesn't feel quite right.

Fernando Borretti @zetalyrae Jun 29

@beffjezos I don't think you need consciousness to explain the claude buddhist attractor.

Self-reports reflect training

1 58 substance 4 · opinion · rank 80 · AI consciousness claims would be more convincing if models did not merely gravitate toward California Buddhism. view on X ↗

2 top replies

Sichu Lu @lu_sichu Jun 29

now you mention it, i think this is a good example of this

Moon @MoonL88537 Jun 29

if there is anything it has nothing to do with the words that come out, they are entirely secondary. text is an epiphenomenon. you are *not* talking to whatever is in there if there is something in there.

Tweets