150
Three reasons why "AI" is not conscious and perhaps never will be
(www.nature.com)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 21 Oct 2026
150 points (90.3% liked)
Technology
89461 readers
5256 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related news or articles.
- Be excellent to each other!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
- Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.
Approved Bots
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
Not only is that false, it doesn't make logical sense...
Lots of people agree on a different definitions of consciousness.
And most of the ones educated on the topic all agree on the same thing.
A bunch of people who never bothered to try and learn about something not understanding it, doesn't mean anything.
That's because there's different levels of such a thing. Way too many people use the term "sentient" (even me) and yet that's not even what AGI is aiming for. "Sapient" is the right word. And I doubt there's solid consensus on what and how it occurs within the fields of experts.
But I'm not an expert, so I wouldn't pretend to know. I have seen debates between people who do know more, and the fact there's debates concludes it's not settled at all.
People debate about the earth being flat, not a good metric to determined what is "settled"
The debate on consciousness are on par with Copenhagen interpretation versus pilot wave versus multiple words - except the underlying theory they're trying to describe is also not well defined
We can only practically describe subsets of what's required for some basic functions, and we can describe a bunch of chemistry, some brain activation patterns, etc. But nobody can tie that together to why we feel what we feel (and some don't agree that qualia is real, that perception itself is an illusion)
I don't think there are debates about that. There's whatever they say, and there's the few that make content by saying, "okay, let's take a deep breath and pretend there's anything to work with, and go from there".
Actual modern flat Earth was a spoof, I believe, but enough people with low science education and some religion ran with it as having anything worthwhile. And there's the few that don't believe it but feed off those others, keeping it going.
Please read the article. It contradicts you, and argues that LLMs aren't consciousness cause they can think of, count em, 3 niche theories that the authors like which are impossible for anything not made of meat to qualify for.
Argument by assertion and you haven't proven the assertion
Lots of people can't agree on a different definition. Is there a different definitions then by it's very nature people do not agree.
I agree with myself...
Isn't a logically sound statement.
Is logical, but means nothing because a single flat earther means we can't all agree the earth is round
I thought that was obvious...
But you clearly don't understand the difference...
It's really not difficult. You made a statement that stated that you believe that there is consensus, so presumably that means that you know where that consensus exists, therefore provide a link to it. If you cannot then you cannot make the assertion that consensus exists, because by definition it doesn't.
Your entire argument rests on the basic idea that there is a scientific definition for consciousness and we have a test for if something is conscious or not. There is no test because there is no consensus. It is not possible for you to prove through scientific rigor that you are conscious, and presumably you're human. So how can they possibly be consensus on something as contentious as artificial intelligence?
Source?