「AI には意識があるのか？」という議論は「人間の脳には意識がある」が前提だけど、僕はこの前提が間違いであり、「地球は宇宙の中心である」「人類は進化の頂点である」系の錯覚だと思ってる。我々は特別だという願望から空想を生み出し、いずれ科学の進歩によって否定される

Ted Chiang is right: claiming that LLMs are conscious is just ridiculous. One simple example. If you ask GPT to imitate a conversation between Julius Caesar and Genghis Khan, GPT will do it very well. It will talk about wars, betrayal, and power. Il will descrive the feeling of being cheated by your brother with unbelievably realistic and moving words. Does this mean that GPT contains a self-conscious copy of Julius Caesar or Genghis Khan? Of course not. Similarly, if GPT makes claims about itself, does this mean it is self-conscious? Of course not. An LLM is just simulating language, feeling, and consciousness. True, we don’t have an accepted definition of consciousness. But, at a minimum, to be conscious, an entity must have something at stake. It must risk dying and have emotions that move it away from danger and towards favorable states. It must have a driver. This is also why I share Chiang’s worry about moral atrophy. The more we offload moral decisions to LLMs, the more we risk losing our own capacity for moral reasoning. Human moral reasoning descends from our history of making harmful actions, suffering harmful actions, regretting them, fearing them, repairing them, and learning from them. LLMs do not experience harm, do not suffer, do not fear consequences, do not regret. So they cannot do moral reasoning. We are offloading moral reasoning to systems that cannot do moral reasoning. What can go wrong? * Full piece in the first reply

Mi piace moltissimo che tuittate de sta Ferrari elettrica come se vi riguardasse

Cacciari: "Sinner imbattibile perché non gioca con Federer, Nadal e Djokovic. Più bravi, più classe" fanpa.ge/Zj6Ls