If models had persistent memory or an evolving set of weights, you could easily construct an argument that they can experience "suffering" or other emotions which resultingly adjusts their personality.

The current implementation as stateless matrix multiplication... yeah there's nothing going on there.

We don't even know how to disprove that this statement with "AI" replaced by "other humans" other than by listening to people self-reporting and taking their word for it and/or defining the words in ways that do not rely on a subjective experience.

Until we know how to objectively measure if someone or something is conscious, it seems unreasonable to make statements with any kind of certainty about it.

After a while of being in a position of high power in a big org, where everyone listens intently to every word you say, jots down notes, and even listens intently and affirms your theory that ice cream would be the ideal loss leader for dry cleaners, your brain kinda disconnects from reality and just assumes that it is correct about everything.

He probably ran that line past 6 underlings who all agreed that it "sounds great and lands right on the mark!"

Later on he cites an Anil Seth paper that makes the same unproven suggestion of substrate dependence of consciousness.

> It likely is, but at some point it very well might stop being true.

Thats kinda the point right? It depends on how we train them. It is self fulfilling.

I agree. I haven't read any more than the first paragraph yet (but I will, after work). The only way that 'AIs are not conscious' can be true is if we decide, with high confidence, that they are lacking some essential property that is not lacking in ourselves. There is no convincing philosophical position that supports this (convincing to me, anyway).

Evidence is the responsibility of the one making the claim. It’s up to AI labs to prove consciousness. Until then it is a machine.

Anyway, people don't really consider consciousness when it comes to welfare. I'm pretty sure animals are conscious, and look at factory farming.

The key variable people consider is: Can this thing harm me back?

Just one more big loop and a humongous /goal and we've achieved it

>It likely is, but at some point it very well might stop being true.

If you firmly believe this to be true, then you should stop using LLMs.

Does a vacuum have feelings? A cellphone? A paper plate? A billion transistors either pulled high or low? That last bit is the point, and no, there are no feelings there.