Something that is still not clear to me is, what is conscious even. It references the Chinese Room experiment:
> Suppose that artificial intelligence research has succeeded in programming a computer to behave as if it understands Chinese. The machine accepts Chinese characters as input, carries out each instruction of the program step by step, and then produces Chinese characters as output. The machine does this so perfectly that no one can tell that they are communicating with a machine and not a hidden Chinese speaker.
But what makes a human mind more "understanding"? Who says we're not simulating? Who says our mind even exists, in this space?
We're also a neural network, are we any more clever than a simulated one?
I think these questions were addressed by Searle[1]. His argument is not that AI is impossible, it's that the existence of surprisingly human-like behavior doesn't turn a non-cognitive system into a cognitive one. The strong AI hypothesis is that you can make a computational system where, if its output is similar to what a human would produce by cognition, the system must model cognition. The Chinese room is an argument against that hypothesis.
The paper also provides some suggestions as to where cog sci needs to go to make AI possible.
From my viewpoint, if you really think that LLMs can model cognition, then you are also going to have to bring along a model of human cognition to compare it to, and you have to do it "under the hood" as it were. The external behavior is not enough. In my formulation, if a space alien showed up with vastly different biology but appeared to be cognitively conscious, we may or may not want to believe in its cognitive ability, but it's just whattaboutism to use this hypothetical alien to argue for consciousness of the LLM.
That seems like moving the goalposts to a place where the GP (or anyone in the field promoting "artificial intelligence") wouldn't want to move them to.
> We're also a neural network, are we any more clever than a simulated one?
This is tangential, but it is highly unlikely that we are "a neural network". Neural networks are an architecture loosely inspired by some aspects of the brain, but e.g. it's highly unlikely that we learn by backpropagation (neural signals don't travel in that direction). The brain is a network of neurons, but neural networks are something else. Neural networks probably don't work as the brain does.
I think we can talk about intelligence without introducing consciousness.
So there are two questions
1. Is LLMs really showing intelligent behavior.
2. Is that real intelligence.
I think even to the first question, the answer is no. Because really intelligent behavior that can solve complex math problems should be also be able to do basic things like counting, without any extra mechanisms. Intelligent behavior would understand low level things, and building understanding of higher level things using them. When an entity shows "understanding of higher level things, without showing an understanding of some of the low level things involved, then it becomes clear that the entity is not intelligent.
So this should be proof enough to identify that LLMs does not in fact show intelligent behavior. It is just some trick. An illusion.
So we can reach this conclusions even without consider the implementation and training of LLMs, which We would only have to consider it to answer the second question, which was not required because it failed the first one.
> But what makes a human mind more "understanding"?
If you view understanding as knowledge + the ability to apply it, everything falls into its place. The Chinese room can't apply the knowledge that it has, even theoretically.
The immobile Chinese room was once a mobile Chinese room.
You're refutation isn't there. There isn't anything that distinguishes a Chinese room from a Chinese person. You submit Chinese text and get Chinese answers.
You say understanding only exists in humans. That's special pleading not an explanation.
Ask your Chinese room what left and right means. Also: near and far, heavy and light, hot and cold. When it comes up with definitions through other concepts, ask what those things mean, etc.
I see you have been downvoted. I also see how you can reason your way into your points of view. Let me see if I can add some points to consider.
1. Current ai models people use may be called neural networks, but they bare almost no real semblance to biological ones.
2. A complete human brain is not a compilation of all text books and internet chats. It is a nuanced technology shaped by human experiences , lived and biased by the chemistry of the human body. Human thought is not always linguistic. In the same way you do not tell your lungs to breathe every breath you can find a work of art astoundingly beautiful or a landscape to inspire you. Cleverness is one axis out of a billion to meter consciousness.
3. The human mind or consciousness stirs a lot of philosophical debate. Probably best not touched with a 10 ft poll on the Internet with strangers. I would encourage you to think about or read about human experiences, the synchronicities, and coincidences that happen between people. Especially under times of uncertainty, or blissful innovation. AI is seated backwards in the hierarchy of consciousness. That doesn't mean it's not useful but it's like comparing a water purification plant to the planets treatment of water from rain to subsurface flows and atmospheric chemistry.
The discussion of AI "consciousness" always recedes into a semantic fog. It's not alive. It's not thinking. Anthropormorphizing software does not benefit our understanding, only it's marketing. ECREE (Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence) There has been no evidence of consciousness, extraordinary or otherwise. Everything else is rhetorical nonsense.
Sounds more like a self-imposed penalty by the author. I mean I can read most of the world internet without such a message so I don't know what it even means.
This is what the UK government wants. Kyle has spent an insane amount of effort to get answers from OFCOM, got none, and as such blocks the UK for self-preservation. The UK wants to fine non-citizens for violating online purity rules, so this is the result.
Blame the UK for this bullshit. The rules say you must geoblock the UK or be fined, and then sometimes you still get fined anyway.
I have no problem blaming the UK government for all sorts of bullshit, but in this case I don't understand who says the UK has to be geoblocked. I can read literally hundreds of thousands of websites on the internets, it's just this one that seems to have a problem.
My educated guess is that the author is just being precious because he disagrees with the UK Online Safety Act. Everyone else seems to sort of ignore it and move on, so all that this does is that I can't read his site from the UK.
Or, rather, I could use a VPN but I can see here: https://archive.ph/iYLUO that it's a pdf article on some AI stuff. A previous article from the same site posted on HN (https://archive.ph/eXuD0) was also some commentary on using AI.
So is the author implying that the Online Safety Act will cause him to be fined for a couple of articles on AI, or what? What's supposed to be so objectionable to the Online Safety Act on his website that compels him to block the UK from it?
Yes, well, the author seems to be blocking access to make a point about being forced to block access. Which is a bit, you know. Really? OK, I don't need to read your stuff, I can read literally hundreds of thousands of other pages on the internet without their authors throwing a tantrum.
It also blocks IPs from states with age verification laws. I mean, okay, I respect the principle, but since there's very little I can do about the laws, and since there are exactly zero politicians who are going to fret because they can't visit aphyr dot com, it's a bit pretentious. So I guess I'll just k-line all aphyr dot com links in my filter and move on with my life. Everybody blocking everybody is how we win.
From others "Kyle has spent an insane amount of effort to get answers from OFCOM, got none, and as such blocks the UK for self-preservation. The UK wants to fine non-citizens for violating online purity rules, so this is the result"
If he can't get an answer, then probably better to not get charged with something.
> Suppose that artificial intelligence research has succeeded in programming a computer to behave as if it understands Chinese. The machine accepts Chinese characters as input, carries out each instruction of the program step by step, and then produces Chinese characters as output. The machine does this so perfectly that no one can tell that they are communicating with a machine and not a hidden Chinese speaker.
But what makes a human mind more "understanding"? Who says we're not simulating? Who says our mind even exists, in this space?
We're also a neural network, are we any more clever than a simulated one?
The paper also provides some suggestions as to where cog sci needs to go to make AI possible.
From my viewpoint, if you really think that LLMs can model cognition, then you are also going to have to bring along a model of human cognition to compare it to, and you have to do it "under the hood" as it were. The external behavior is not enough. In my formulation, if a space alien showed up with vastly different biology but appeared to be cognitively conscious, we may or may not want to believe in its cognitive ability, but it's just whattaboutism to use this hypothetical alien to argue for consciousness of the LLM.
1. https://www.cambridge.org/core/services/aop-cambridge-core/c...
https://www.cnet.com/science/biology/bumblebees-like-playing...
Animals perform cognition.
We shouldn't confuse consciousness or agency or with cognition.
This is tangential, but it is highly unlikely that we are "a neural network". Neural networks are an architecture loosely inspired by some aspects of the brain, but e.g. it's highly unlikely that we learn by backpropagation (neural signals don't travel in that direction). The brain is a network of neurons, but neural networks are something else. Neural networks probably don't work as the brain does.
So there are two questions
1. Is LLMs really showing intelligent behavior. 2. Is that real intelligence.
I think even to the first question, the answer is no. Because really intelligent behavior that can solve complex math problems should be also be able to do basic things like counting, without any extra mechanisms. Intelligent behavior would understand low level things, and building understanding of higher level things using them. When an entity shows "understanding of higher level things, without showing an understanding of some of the low level things involved, then it becomes clear that the entity is not intelligent.
So this should be proof enough to identify that LLMs does not in fact show intelligent behavior. It is just some trick. An illusion. So we can reach this conclusions even without consider the implementation and training of LLMs, which We would only have to consider it to answer the second question, which was not required because it failed the first one.
The people running the experiment.
And yes is the answer to what should be a rhetorical question.
If you view understanding as knowledge + the ability to apply it, everything falls into its place. The Chinese room can't apply the knowledge that it has, even theoretically.
Leveraging ability gets you nothing.
You're refutation isn't there. There isn't anything that distinguishes a Chinese room from a Chinese person. You submit Chinese text and get Chinese answers.
You say understanding only exists in humans. That's special pleading not an explanation.
1. Current ai models people use may be called neural networks, but they bare almost no real semblance to biological ones.
2. A complete human brain is not a compilation of all text books and internet chats. It is a nuanced technology shaped by human experiences , lived and biased by the chemistry of the human body. Human thought is not always linguistic. In the same way you do not tell your lungs to breathe every breath you can find a work of art astoundingly beautiful or a landscape to inspire you. Cleverness is one axis out of a billion to meter consciousness.
3. The human mind or consciousness stirs a lot of philosophical debate. Probably best not touched with a 10 ft poll on the Internet with strangers. I would encourage you to think about or read about human experiences, the synchronicities, and coincidences that happen between people. Especially under times of uncertainty, or blissful innovation. AI is seated backwards in the hierarchy of consciousness. That doesn't mean it's not useful but it's like comparing a water purification plant to the planets treatment of water from rain to subsurface flows and atmospheric chemistry.
Peace
And here we are upvoting this drivel. This individual has clearly never used Claude in unhinged mode.
Isn't the "free" world a beautiful thing? -_____-'
Blame the UK for this bullshit. The rules say you must geoblock the UK or be fined, and then sometimes you still get fined anyway.
My educated guess is that the author is just being precious because he disagrees with the UK Online Safety Act. Everyone else seems to sort of ignore it and move on, so all that this does is that I can't read his site from the UK.
Or, rather, I could use a VPN but I can see here: https://archive.ph/iYLUO that it's a pdf article on some AI stuff. A previous article from the same site posted on HN (https://archive.ph/eXuD0) was also some commentary on using AI.
So is the author implying that the Online Safety Act will cause him to be fined for a couple of articles on AI, or what? What's supposed to be so objectionable to the Online Safety Act on his website that compels him to block the UK from it?
I mean, I'm asking because I really can't tell.
The US 'free speech over everything', also allows anti-science and conspiracy theories.
But this UK example, seems to be a good example why allowing all the US Crazy is better option.
Sorry, I'm in the UK so I haven't read the article that the author has decided to block my access to.
The author has said, he blocked it because of UK regulations.
If UK is making authors be defensive and block their own stuff, or have legal charges, it is little backwards to blame the authors for the blocking.
http://web.archive.org/web/20260421123054/https://aphyr.com/...
I read the original chapters online but appreciate this format.
- LuaTeX-1.17.0
- LaTeX via pandoc
If he can't get an answer, then probably better to not get charged with something.
Kyle has spent a lot of time and resources trying to talk to OFCOM. They won't give answers, so the only reasonable option is to block the UK.
Which is the entire point of your laws. Blame yourself.
Get your own house in order (if you're from the US), and ironically, keep your nonsense within your own borders....