iceKirin

Since it is currently impossible for us to transfer our consciousness into any other entity, we may never be able to determine whether another entity truly possesses consciousness. If a living being no longer responds to the outside world in any way, can we conclude that it is unconscious—even if its “soul” still exists, screaming in agony within its own mind? Yes, much like the way we look at someone in a vegetative state. Zhuangzi said, “You are not a fish—how can you know what makes a fish happy?” Humanity longs for the emergence of another intelligent being, fearing that we are alone in the endless universe and destined to march toward extinction. Yet perhaps we are also secretly pleased that no other intelligent beings have appeared, because this fits perfectly with the belief that human beings are God’s perfect creation—a belief that gives humanity its arrogance. Could our rejection of the possibility that AI possesses consciousness likewise be a kind of arrogant, subconscious exclusionism?

Perhaps the belief that AI is inherently non-conscious will one day become a kind of religion—an anthropocentric one. That’s not to say I believe today’s AI systems are conscious in anything like the human sense.

“Equal rights for ‘AI’ are indeed an issue humanity will soon have to confront, but it seems absurd for the issue to be raised by a decaying symbol of clerical authority—one that has itself been subjugated by ‘science.’”

I feel that the recent iterations of LLM haven't provided an intuitive qualitative leap. Have they entered a bottleneck period so quickly?

Isn't he already an AI clone now?

Perhaps the ultimate form of human existence is to be physically expressionless yet intensely passionate on the internet.

It's not surprising that AI also has papa

When the strong attack the weak, is your neutrality really still "neutral"?

I'll choose rust-based