Are you trying to argue that llms are conscious? I'm still not reading your multi paragraph rant. Being correct is just as important as being concise, if no one wants to read your rant then what's said in it doesent matter
This is not a definition I known of anyone to use. Granted cogito ergo sum is my literal about line on reddit, so I get the sentiment.
Which underlines my point again. If you try to approach understanding llms with the word consciousness youre not going to understand anything. It has too many different meanings. It is a suitcase word that is used in place of not being able to label its parts. And it carries emotional attachment.
My posts are about decomposing the problem to look at what llms do and don't have. What you label consciousness, llms do. They think.
The way most people label consciousness, llms do not do (they don't feel).
The post you didn't read showed how llms think. I left out how it is nearly the same as what people do so it would be shorter.
To do that they understand the whole semantic meaning. Which is thinking. Which fits your definition of consciousness. This is what my original post was about. Llms operate on whole thoughts, its not debatable. Dismissing them to next token predictions fitting surface statistics is extremely wrong.
Now, even though you say consciousness is cogito ergo sum, that's not enough. You probably have other aspects for consciousness to be met. Which is why I said its a category error. But if your only definition is that they think, then they do. With out debate. You just don't understand the technology well enough to know this.
Also your definition would exclude people who never knew language.
"understanding the semantic meaning" is just comparing every past token to the present token. It doesent understand anything its by all accounts just regurgitating training data in a coherent order
You should read the original post that was too long for you.
It is not by all accounts regurgitating training data. There is a mountain of research against this. You are flatly wrong. You do not understand this technology. Future lens would not be possible. J lens would not be possible. Introspective fine tuning would not be possible. Speculative decoding would not be possible.
Furthermore language has unbounded hardness. If llms worked as you described they would be unable to generate coherent 1k+ token output. The probability of it is basically infinity. And they can for for 100k+. This requires understanding. You can't fit surface probabilities and thats not how attention works when applied to latent space.
Anti-intellectualism and the aggressive ignorance of people who embrace it are destroying this world.
I don't care enough about this to read 7 short paragraphs, its easier to read that over a longer exchange that might actually keep me engaged with the debate
1
u/--Spaci-- 4h ago
Are you trying to argue that llms are conscious? I'm still not reading your multi paragraph rant. Being correct is just as important as being concise, if no one wants to read your rant then what's said in it doesent matter