Post #2022518

2026-05-03 08:51 UTC

Exactly, which is why it's IMO a bit presumptuous to say with confidence that humans are conscious while LLMs are categorically not conscious. We don't even really know what that means. I don't personally think LLMs are conscious, at least not yet or not to the same degree that humans are. But that's purely based on vibe, it's not something I can *know*. We need to figure out what consciousness really is and how to measure it before we can say we know this with any certainty.

Replies (1)

@yeahiknow3@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2026-05-03 08:56

It is not presumptuous at all. Inference to the best explanation is how you know (almost) anything. 1. This table isn’t conscious. This is my justified belief. No inferential claim is guaranteed and all objective claims are inferential (which is why scientific claims aren’t absolute). That said, I have strong reasons to think that tables aren’t conscious. They might be, but I’m epistemically compelled to believe otherwise. 2. ChatGPT isn’t conscious. Ditto. It would be irrational for me to believe otherwise given the strong evidence. That you “don’t know for sure” is an implied disclaimer for every scientific claim. If the evidence is ambiguous, we say so. Regarding ChatGPT, the evidence is unambiguous. 3. I am conscious. This is a non-inferential claim that I know through direct contact with reality. It is _a priori._

Open ##2022519