*Matt: **"**LLMs do model subjective experience, free will, pain, pleasure, and
other human emotions. They have to in order to predict words. A program that
carries out these predictions in real time passes the Turing test and is
therefore indistinguishable from having consciousness."
**Todor: *Output, text ("language"), dialog, interaction etc. are not
consciousness and they never was, either if the interlocutors are humans or
computers or whatever objects or subjects. Many homo sapiens confuse these
concepts, which is just to show they do not understand them. It is only *your*
own consciousness, if it is there, in a process called "*mindification*" (see
Universe and Mind 6, SIGI-2026) or in the broader sense - a kind of "animism"
and it goes for the interactions with other humans as well, either in online or
offline interaction.
Put simply: "Text" or "Data" is not "consciousness", no matter what the content
of the piece of text or data is. If it is, then it would imply universal
data-based-panpsychism. There are such directions in Theory of Computers,
Universe and Mind, however it goes at all levels and in a *proper* reading
"everything turns consciousness" and the notion of "consciousness" in this,
spiritual way, "subjectively", becomes of less importance or less meaningful -
it is not a special "extraordinary, magical, human-only" attribute (now
possessed by a "magic box" - the difficulty of whose localization is not
understood by the "consciousness-ers") , which cheaters use for they talks - it
turns to mundane, but this is not how it is interpreted by the aforementioned
"cheaters", so they do not imply universal data-information-computational
panpsychism, because they require that **they* are the judges of whether "this"
or "that" has or doesn't have that precious quality*, and the criteria is
artificially enforced to fit their dataset and to mimic them.*
Subjective experience should not be objective, otherwise it loses its
subjectivity.
The "default" LLMs implicitly model "stuff" which leads to output
manifestations, which would be interpreted as expression of emotions, if it was
attributed to humans. "Subjective experience" is not modeled. A program (or any
entity - see the individuation and definition of the boundaries of the entities
and their identity - a problem addressed many times in my messages, e.g. the
letter to Jordan Zlatev) that can output words that appear as ... is *not
"therefore indistinguishable from having consciousness', *and Turing test or
Turing are not God who decided that if some artificial test is passed,
"therefore you, my son, have a Spirit and a soul".
*BOOKS *are also "intelligent" and can pass the "Turing test"* - take an
encyclopedia, a dictionary or another book having "contents". Ask a question:
*"I want to know what is ..."* - open the book at the target article, locate
it, read it - that is the answer and it is the same as if a "PhD level or
postdoc and academician level expert in the field" answered you, for example if
the volume was an encyclopedia of the Academy of Science. Then the article says
"See also ..." - just like LLMs were trained to suggest, the continuations. Or
even if it doesn't explicitly say it, the dialog involves two parties, so you
may decide that you want to *read more about ... *- then you turn the pages,
browse - there you are: *"the thing B is ... it consists of ... it is related
to ...* " . The same goes for computer games, any software and computers.
(Counter argument: "they are not, because they are not computers" - well,
computers are "not books", therefore - "they cannot print or display text,
novels, ...", right? :))) because this is an attribute of "books" only, LOL --
an example of the nonsense and lack of abstract thinking)
*As of "Real time" - in real time humans remember 1.5 - 2 second in the past
and can hardly predict verbal output for less. *So "in order to be conscious"
(to imitate human "experience, free will...") it should be only a reactive
agent who acts like that, who utters short and superficial situated expression:
- How are you?
- Fine, you?
- Great, thanks. What's the weather?
- Oh, I'm happy it's hot.
- Like it should be in the summer.
- Right. How's your wife?
- She's alright, thanks for asking. And yours?
- She is with the children in Jungylandia.
- Ah, where is that?
- In the Myrondian island.
- The new trend.
- Yes. Did you fix your car?
- No, I bought a new one.
- What make?
- Moskvitch 408.
- Wow, a real oldie!
- Yeah.
....
Ask a "random human", a man, who is not into, say sprint and jump training,
"How to run faster? What should I train?"
- Well... Why do you ask me?
- Because I want to test whether you are a machine.
- WTF? Are you kidding me?
- No. What do you think.
[if he doesn't punch you; oh, it's on a "teletype" - that saved your nose]
- Well... I guess you have to ... just run fast. Try to push harder.
- Is that enough?
- I don't know. I've seen some funny movements runners do during a warm-up; it
was at school.
- Drills?
-No-o-o. Drills are used for making holes in things, not for sprinting!
- Aren't they called like that? Skips, quick movements with the knees up or
"kicking your own ass" with the heels.
- Ah... It looks like that. So they are called drills. Then - do these drills.
- But aren't they too slow? How would I run faster? They look like a joke, I
agree.
- Just do them faster. Or many times in a row..
- Many sets?
- Yes.
- Should I lift weights?
- You said you want to *run* faster. Maybe you have to switch the sports.
- How should I run in order to run faster?
- What do you mean "how"?
- Is there a special technique.
- Well... Possibly. Hit the ground harder than if you jog. Move your arms... I
told you I don't know!
- Think!
- F* y* a*e!
LOL
This is a more realistic human conversation - try to get it from a
current-style LLM, even a dumb one.
However if one can talk like that, it will "pass the Turing test", because if
it will "behave like a human", LOL.
In both cases this will not prove neither that "it had consciousness" or that
"it modeled human emotions, free will, planning" etc.
(Also: like human = like *which* exact human? Why? Etc.)
....
The nonsense of the "vanilla" Turing test* was addressed since the early works
Theory of Computers, Universe and Mind in 2001-2002, Hinton "et al." still
confuse it.
Minsky in one of his latest interviews: "Turing test is a joke" - find an
excerpt in the main volume of *The Prophets of the Thinking Machines, SIGI-2025.
*The whole interview: https://www.singularityweblog.com/marvin-minsky/
*See also:*
* "Man and Thinking Machine: Analysis of the Possibility that a Thinking
Machine Could be Created and Some Disadvantages of Man and Organic Matter",
December 2001, The Sacred Computer #13
* Човекът и Мислещата Машина (Анализ на възможността да се създаде Мислеща
машина и някои недостатъци на човека и органичната материя пред нея)
A machine-translation-friendly reference:
https://eim.twenkid.com/old/eimworld13/izint_13.html
Note the differences that is made between cognitive/intelligent
"consciousness"/awareness (self-reference, reflection, knowledge) - manifested
in "sufficiently" sophisticated intelligent behavior, output, interaction - and
*spiritual consciousness, "soul", *"subjective experience",* *"phenomenal
consciousness" (compare to David Chalmers' "hard problem of consciousness).
A system, whatever way it is segmented and distinguished as a separate entity,
can possess or display "cognitive consciousness" without having a "spiritual
one"; respectively, an entity possessing "spiritual consciousness" may be
unable to display features, which other entities, manifesting "cognitive
awareness" believe or assume the other entities must have in order to be
entitled and "legalized" by them as "being conscious". That often happens to
humans as well after suffering stroke or brain damage or just being in
particular mental states, having mental challenges or being very young.
* "The Truth", December 2002 - a prophetic novelette about the creation of
thinking machines.
* Истината, Свещеният сметач, бр. 19, декември 2002; второ издание: 9.2003.
-- Първо издание: https://www.oocities.org/eimworld/eim19/istinata.htm
-- Бележки към първо издание:
https://www.oocities.org/eimworld/3/26/istinata11.htm
--- Второ издание (по-лесно за машинен превод - по-малко неологизми):
https://www.oocities.org/eimworld/3/26/istinata11.htm
https://chitanka.info/text/865-istinata
* Faults in Turing Test and Lovelace Test. Introduction of Educational Test,
Artificial Mind,
November 2007
https://artificial-mind.blogspot.com/2007/11/faults-in-turing-test-and-lovelace-test.html
* The underspecified "cheating and judgment test"
* If you can't parse the sentence - ask an LLM, his consciousness will untangle
the clauses for you
------------------------------------------
Artificial General Intelligence List: AGI
Permalink:
https://agi.topicbox.com/groups/agi/T1b6c21f92326684e-M4ce91d8fffafe276e8d9bf7a
Delivery options: https://agi.topicbox.com/groups/agi/subscription
