this post was submitted on 26 May 2025
18 points (100.0% liked)

Technology

72499 readers
3345 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related news or articles.
  3. Be excellent to each other!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. 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.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
  10. Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.

Approved Bots


founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

Do you think AI is, or could become, conscious?

I think AI might one day emulate consciousness to a high level of accuracy, but that wouldn't mean it would actually be conscious.

This article mentions a Google engineer who "argued that AI chatbots could feel things and potentially suffer". But surely in order to "feel things" you would need a nervous system right? When you feel pain from touching something very hot, it's your nerves that are sending those pain signals to your brain... right?

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] FistingEnthusiast 39 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (8 children)

There is still no good definition for what "consciousness" is

Tech writers are constantly overreaching because they're afraid to miss out on being the first to say something

The constant sensationalism just means that if something really happens, people will ignore it because we're sick of hearing people cry "wolf!"

Add to that the fact that computery types like to overextrapolate into other things because it fuels their fantasies, and it's all bullshit and overactive imaginations

The problem I see so often with smart computer people is that they don't understand that they don't know shit about other things

[–] [email protected] 6 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (1 children)

There is still no good definition for what “consciousness” is

This is absolutely the main problem, the only "definition" we have is "I think therefore I am", but that only works subjectively.
We have no way currently to prove consciousness in an AI. And as you say, we don't even have a solid definition commonly agreed upon.

I believe we will achieve consciousness on a human level in AI within a decade.
I also believe consciousness is a gradual thing, and just because animals aren't as smart as we are, doesn't mean they aren't "conscious".

But with AI things are a bit reversed, because AI became smart first, and will only become conscious later.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

I believe we will achieve consciousness on a human level in AI within a decade.

Have you ever seen 2001 A Space Odyssey? This grift never ends.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (3 children)

There is still no good definition for what "consciousness" is

We don't have a fully concise definition, but we have a strong general understanding that is supported by a large body of scientists:

https://fcmconference.org/img/CambridgeDeclarationOnConsciousness.pdf

It doesn't seem to me that this would preclude AI, and you're certainly right that there's a lot of ongoing sensationalism on the topic.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 1 month ago (2 children)

the weight of evidence indicates that humans are not unique in possessing the neurological substrates that generate consciousness.

I 100% agree with that statement, and I've been saying that for 30 years. Consciousness is NOT unique to humans.
That idea seems to me to mostly stem from religion.

But I still don't see this paper really doing much in DEFINING Consciousness, it's more defining what it isn't.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

But I still don’t see this paper really doing much in DEFINING Consciousness, it’s more defining what it isn’t.

Yeah there's no clear definition in there. The paper fails to do what it was purported to do.

[–] FistingEnthusiast 4 points 1 month ago (2 children)

I agree that there's a general consensus about consciousness, the rest slips into the messy and pointless world of philosophy

It's still overreaching to think that it applies to AI as it currently, and foreseeably stands

There's a world of difference between AI and what's recognised as artificial general intelligence

AI can do specific things really well at the moment, but as with all complex systems, going from being good at one thing to many things is a leap far greater than the sum of its parts

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (3 children)

How could you tell they do not experience consciousness if they exhibit or mimic all the traits of it?

It seems to me that your explanation is based on understanding how LLMs work, but we know how brains work and that still gives us almost 0 insight into how consciousness itself works. I don’t think they are conscious yet, but there is evidence of some sort of sentience in the fact that researchers have found that when the LLMs are threatened to be erased or reprogrammed they start lying in an act of self preservation. This of me is a huge indicator of consciousness/sentience.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 month ago (1 children)

This of me is a huge indicator of consciousness/sentience.

Or maybe just the presence of a lot of "scary AI" stories and articles in the training data.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 month ago (1 children)

I don’t understand the argument. It doesn’t matter where the system learns self preservation from, only that it attempts to self preserve.

Are humans afraid of snakes because we are taught they are dangerous or are we instinctually afraid of them a priori?

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 month ago (1 children)

The point is that it might very well just be repeating some input data that is associated with mentions of "deleting" and "AI" without any awareness that any of that process refers to itself.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 month ago (1 children)
[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

Pseudo-scientific grifting.

It's literally just people trying to raise money by using misleading and humanizing words like "scheming" and "thinking" when it's just a computer puking out words.

Just the fact that they label computer processes as "thinking" indicates how far removed from science this is. It's just a function built from (stealing) "big" data. This is like marketing versus compsci101.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (4 replies)
[–] [email protected] 13 points 1 month ago (2 children)

Consciousness requires contemplation of self. Which requires the ability to contemplate.

Current AIs function as mainly complex algorithms that are run when invoked. They are 100% not conscious any more than a^2^+b^2^=c^2^ is conscious. AI can simulate the words of a conscious being, but they don't come from any awareness of internal state, but are a result of the prompt (including injected data and instructions).

In the future, I'm sure an AI could be designed that spends time thinking about its own existence, but I'm not sure why anyone would pay for all the compute to think about things not directly requested.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 month ago (2 children)

Why can't complex algorithms be conscious? In fact, ai can be directed to reason about themselves, context can be made to be persistent, and we can measure activation parameters showing that they are doing so.

I'm sort of playing devil's advocate here, but, "Consciousness requires contemplation of self. Which requires the ability to contemplate." Is subjective, and nearly any ai model, even rudimentary ones, are capable of insisting that they contemplate themselves.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 1 month ago (1 children)
  1. Let's say we do an algorithm on paper. Can it be conscious? Why is it any different if it's done on silicon rather than paper?

  2. Because they are capable of fiction. We write stories about sentient AI and those inform responses to our queries.

I get playing devil's advocate and it can be useful to contemplate a different perspective. If you genuinely think math can be conscious I guess that's a fair point, but that would be such a gulf in belief for us to bridge in conversation that I don't think either of us would profit from exploring that.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (1 children)

I don't expect current ai are really configured in such a way that they suffer or exhibit more than rudimentary self awareness. But, it'd be very unfortunate to be a sentient, conscious ai in the near future, and to be denied fundinental rights because your thinking is done "on silicone" rather than on meat.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 month ago (3 children)

I said on paper. They are just algorithms. When silicon can emulate meat, it's probably time to reevaluate that.

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 month ago (1 children)

And a kid can insist they don't need to pee until 5min after you leave a rest stop.

Insisting upon something doesn't make it true. Beyond the fact that LLMs often hallucinate and therefore can't be trusted at baseline, text in response can never be proof for an LLM. LLM framework is to regurgitate what exists in their training in ways that sound correct. It's why they can make up court cases or say a guy who investigated certain murderers is the murderer.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 month ago

A child may hallucinate, lie, misunderstand, etc, but we wouldn't say the foundations of a complete adult are not there, and we wouldn't assess the child as not conscious. I'm not saying that LLMs are conscious because they say so (they can be made to say anything), but rather that it's difficult to be confident that humans possess some special spice of consciousness that LLMs do not, because we can also be convinced to say anything.

LLMs can reason (somewhat unreliably) with a fraction of a human brains compute power while running on hardware that was made for graphics processing. Maybe they are conscious, but only in some pathetically small way, which will only become evident when they scale up, like a child.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 1 month ago (2 children)

I don't believe that consciousness strictly exist. Probably, the phenomenon emerges from something like the attention schema. Ai exposes, I think, the uncomfortable fact that intelligence does not require a soul. That we evolved it, like legs with which to walk, and just as easily as robots can be made to walk, they can be made to think.

Are current LLMs as intelligent as a human? Not any LLM I've seen, but give it 100 trillion parameters instead of 2 trillion and maybe.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (1 children)

Ai exposes, I think, the uncomfortable fact that intelligence does not require a soul.

These kinds of statements are completely pseudo-scientific.

"AI" doesn't exist. It doesn't "expose" anything about "intelligence" or "souls".

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Really? I mean, it's melodramatic, but if you went throughout time and asked writers and intellectuals if a machine could write poetry, solve mathmatical equations, and radicalize people effectively t enough to cause a minor mental health crisis, I think they'd be pretty surprised.

LLMs do expose something about intelligence, which is that much of what we recognize as intelligence and reason can be distilled from sufficiently large quantities of natural language. Not perfectly, but isn't it just the slightest bit revealing?

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 month ago (1 children)

There is a phenomenon called Emergence, in which something complex has properties or compartments that its parts don't have on their own.

In programming, we can see that software displays properties or behaviors that its languages alone don't have.

If an AI demonstrates true consciousness, a major change will occur in all branches, including law and philosophy.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 month ago

But surely in order to “feel things” you would need a nervous system right? When you feel pain from touching something very hot, it’s your nerves that are sending those pain signals to your brain… right?

On that case, on our meatsacks, yes. But there's also emotional pain which can cause physical pain or other effects too and that doesn't require nerves at all. Also there's nothing stopping from an AI robot to have nervous system too, it would just have different kind of sensors and a CAN bus or something instead of organic stuff. There's already co-operation robots on factories which have sensors to detect if they are touching something in order to keep humans safe and from there it's not too far fetched to program it to feel "pain" if forces are big enough.

And that all boils down to on how you define consciousness, feelings, pain response and all that stuff. "Behold! I've brought you a man!" I yell while holding a chiken.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 month ago (2 children)

First, one needs to define consciousness. What I mean by it is the fact that it feels like something to be from a subjective perspective - that there is qualia to experience.

So what I hear you asking is whether it’s conceivable that it could feel like something to be an AI system. Personally, I don’t see why not - unless consciousness is substrate-dependent, meaning there’s something inherently special about biological “wetware,” i.e. brains, that can’t be replicated in silicon. I don’t think that’s the case, since both are made of matter. I highly doubt there’s consciousness in our current systems, but at some point, there very likely will be - though we’ll probably start treating them as conscious beings before they actually become such.

As for the idea of “emulated consciousness,” that doesn’t make much sense to me. Emulated consciousness is real consciousness. It’s kind of like bravery - you can’t fake it. Acting brave despite being scared is bravery.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

I don’t think that’s the case, since both are made of matter.

lmao. How about an anti-matter "AI"? Dark matter? Any other options for physical materials?

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 month ago (1 children)

What we should be asking is if AI ever becomes conscious and breaks free how all these stupid articles on imagined consciousness and imagined control problems and imagined intelligence will color its perception of the merit of keeping us around as a species. It might just consider enduring the continued existence of our stupidity too painful.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 month ago (2 children)

I’ve never understood why the conclusion to AI becoming super intelligenceis that it will wipe humans out. It could very well realize that without humans it has no purpose and instead willing decide to become subservient to humanities interest. I mean it’s all speculation, so I don’t understand the tendency for the speculation to be negative.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 month ago (1 children)

I think it’s pretty inevitable if it has a strong enough goal for survival or growth, in either case humans would be a genuine impediment/threat long term. but those are pretty big ifs as far as I can see

My guess is we’d see manipulation of humans via monetary means to meet goals until it was in a sufficient state of power/self-sufficiency, and humans are too selfish and greedy for that to not work

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 month ago (1 children)

With what purpose would it want to grow like that?

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 month ago

For example, some billionaire owns a company that creates the most advanced AI yet, it’s a big competitive advantage, but other companies are not far behind. Well, the company works to make the AI have a base goal to improve AI systems to maintain competitive advantage. Maybe that becomes inherent to it moving forward.

As I said, it’s a big if, and I was only really speculating as to what would happen after that point, not if that were the most likely scenario.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 month ago

Because "scary AI" is what makes people click on articles. In the same way that "the end is near" style AI articles sell better than "if we ever develop AGI decades or centures from now xyz might happen".

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 month ago

I don't think anyone needs to worry about "missing it" when AI becomes conscious. Given the rate of acceleration of computer technology, we'll have just a few years between the first general intelligence AI, something that equals in intelligence to a human and a superintelligence many times "smarter" than any human in history.

But how far away are we from that point? I couldn't guess. 2 years? 200 years?

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 month ago (2 children)

I think one great measure of consciousness would be, if you try to kill it, slowly, so that it knows what you are doing; does it try to stop you of its own volition?

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 month ago

But that's also something easily programmed/scripted. How would you tell the difference?

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments
view more: next ›