60
No, Artificial Intelligence Is Not Conscious
(www.theatlantic.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 05 Jun 2026
60 points (96.9% liked)
Technology
42682 readers
175 users here now
This is the official technology community of Lemmy.ml for all news related to creation and use of technology, and to facilitate civil, meaningful discussion around it.
Ask in DM before posting product reviews or ads. All such posts otherwise are subject to removal.
Rules:
1: All Lemmy rules apply
2: Do not post low effort posts
3: NEVER post naziped*gore stuff
4: Always post article URLs or their archived version URLs as sources, NOT screenshots. Help the blind users.
5: personal rants of Big Tech CEOs like Elon Musk are unwelcome (does not include posts about their companies affecting wide range of people)
6: no advertisement posts unless verified as legitimate and non-exploitative/non-consumerist
7: crypto related posts, unless essential, are disallowed
founded 7 years ago
MODERATORS
What he's saying is that it seems rather implausible that we'd skip all the stages of development and jump straight to consciousness which is a reasonable position to hold. His argument is that creating a simulacrum of consciousness is much easier just like faking a moon landing is much easier than actually going to the moon. Nowhere is he saying he would just never believe it no matter what either. He rather says that he hasn't seen any convincing evidence to suggest that LLMs are a way to create consciousness rather than simply write text in a way that makes humans project consciousness onto the system.
Also, not sure what you're saying with your second quote. Why wouldn't anyone ever do the steps of actually creating a proper feedback loop which would have some basis for consciousness?
"What he's saying is that it seems rather implausible that we'd skip all the stages of development and jump straight to consciousness which is a reasonable position to hold."
i don't see any reason to think that you need to go through those particular steps, they seem unneccessary and egregious. The author doesn't know what consciousness is at all so they can only assume one way to do it. If that's their point it could've been said in one sentence and adds nothing to the discussion.
"Nowhere is he saying he would just never believe it no matter what either." he didn't give a reasonable way to falsify the claim which ultimately amounts to saying "nah I just don't think so"
"Why wouldn't anyone ever do the steps of actually creating a proper feedback loop which would have some basis for consciousness?" They would, what you said is vastly more reasonable than what the author wrote, but even then, you wouldn't know if you ended up with something conscious or not. None of the steps listed actually require subjective experience.
basically the author added nothing to the conversation, they went "i don't really know what consciousness is but whatever it is llm's aren't it because they're different from me and I'm the only thing I know is conscious."
and in fact that's an adequate summary of the article, if they wanted to make a good one they'd first need to define consciousness and continue using that definition, since they didn't define it they're free to say whatever they want and it's essentially meaningless
While we don't have a definitive model for what consciousness is, there are definitely compelling arguments on the subject, and the book I linked earlier from the author clearly demonstrates that he has thought about this subject more than you have.
Seems to me that the only one who's not adding anything to the conversation here is you actually. You've provided no argument of your own and you've failed to engage with anything I said. You just keep repeating how Ted Chiang hasn't proven his case definitively, which he has not, but you've provided zero counter agument of your own.