299exp

>But if it turns out that LLMs are conscious That is not how it works. You cannot scientifically test for consciousness, it will always be a guess/agreement, never a fact.

The only way this can be solved is quite simple, as long as it operates on the same principles a human brain operates AND it says is conscious, then it is conscious.

So far, LLMs do not operate on the same principles a human brain operates. The parallelism isn't there, and quite clearly the hardware is wrong, and the general suborgans of the brain are nowhere to be found in any LLM, as far as function goes, let alone theory of operation.

If we make something that works like a human brain does, and it says it's conscious, it most likely is, and deserves any right that any humans benefits from. There is nothing more to it, it's pretty much that basic and simple.

But this goes against the interests of certain parties which would rather have the benefits of a conscious being without being limited by the rights such being could have, and will fight against this idea, they will struggle to deny it by any means necessary.

Think of it this way, it doesn't matter how you get superconductivity, there's a lot of materials that can be made to exhibit the phenomenon, in certain conditions. It is the same superconductivity even if some stuff differs. Theory of operation is the same for all. You set the conditions a certain way, you get the phenomenon.

There is no "can act conscious but isn't" nonsense, that is not something that makes any sense or can ever be proven. You can certainly mimic consciousness, but if it is the result of the same theory of operation that our brains work on, it IS conscious. It must be.

I think I need to point out some obvious issues with the paper.

Definition of artificial:

>Made by humans, especially in imitation of something natural.

>Not arising from natural or necessary causes; contrived or arbitrary.

Thus artificial intelligence must be the same as natural, the process of coming up with it doesn't have to be natural. What this means: we need to consider the substrate that makes natural intelligence. They cannot be separated willy nilly without actual scientific proof. As in, we cannot imply a roll of cheese can manifest intelligence based on the fact that it recognizes how many fingers are in an image.

The problem arises from a potential conflict of interests between hardware manufacturer companies and definition of AGI. The way I understand it, human like intelligence cannot come from algorithms running on GPUs. It will come from some kind of neuromorphic hardware. And the whole point of neuromorphic hardware is that it operates (closely) on human brain principles. Thus, the definition of AGI MUST include some hardware limitations. Just because I can make a contraption "fool" the tests doesn't mean it has human like cognition/awareness. That must arise from the form, from the way the atoms are arranged in the human brain. Any separation must be scientifically proven. Like if anyone implies GPUs can generate human like self awareness that has to be somehow proven. Lacking a logical way to prove it, the best course of action is to closely follow the way the human brain operates (at least SNN hardware).

>The resulting AGI scores (e.g., GPT-4 at 27%, GPT-5 at 57%) concretely quantify both rapid progress and the substantial gap remaining before AGI.

This is nonsense. GPT scores cannot decide AGI level. They are the wrong algorithm running on the wrong hardware.

I have also seen no disclosure on conflict of interests in the paper.

I don't quite see this as groundbreaking as some others do. Life, at its core, is about making choices. What wasn't selected through those choices has been effectively eliminated.

From the very beginning, when organisms first received sensory input and could act on it, life has been shaped by a process of selection through choices. It makes sense that choice is so fundamental to all living things.

What I think confuses some people is the debate about determinism. To me, it feels less of a dilemma when you consider the inherent randomness of reality. This randomness influences both the choices we make and the range of choices available to us. We always make choices, based on many factors, and because some of those factors are unpredictable, not all of our choices are entirely predictable.

True. Although you'd need the context. For example we could see it from the other perspective, where we try doing it, whenever the tech allows. Thus proving there is a real possibility. Whoever we'd end up with will have small chances of "coming" from a possible future.

Just because something can be described mathematically doesn't necessarily mean it's physically possible. It's entirely plausible that our existence is limited to this specific place and time. As I understand it, time travel to the future seems achievable through relativistic speeds or by utilizing strong gravitational fields.

However, my layman's theory for personal time travel to the past relies on a bit of chance. It suggests that if your current existence were to cease, your information could, by random chance, be 'picked up' by a "past" scientist recreating (random) life somewhere/when else (for whatever reasons). This wouldn't involve information transfer in the traditional sense, avoiding a break in causality, and would feel like the very next moment you experience after ceasing to exist here and now.

Of-course the chances for that happening would be crazy low but just the possibility of it seemed intriguing to me.

Individual savings will always be gobbled up by people higher up, who have the power to do it. There's nothing that's being left on the table by regular people. They'll just end up making their lives more miserable while solving exactly nothing, just adding more anxiety about the whole thing.

How about we start taxing wars? Those surely are very carbon expensive. Nobody says anything about that, but everybody wants me to take shorter and shorter showers, like that solves anything.