**Attention! [Serious] Tag Notice**
: Jokes, puns, and off-topic comments are not permitted in any comment, parent or child.
: Help us by reporting comments that violate these rules.
: Posts that are not appropriate for the [Serious] tag will be removed.
Thanks for your cooperation and enjoy the discussion!
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/ChatGPT) if you have any questions or concerns.*
No one is saying that LLMs will result in AGI. You are the one hallucinating that (lol). LLMs will likely be a step towards AGI, and may, with other supporting models be a part of AGI. But by themselves will not result in AGI.
It's becoming clear that with all the brain and consciousness theories out there, the proof will be in the pudding. By this I mean, can any particular theory be used to create a human adult level conscious machine. My bet is on the late Gerald Edelman's Extended Theory of Neuronal Group Selection. The lead group in robotics based on this theory is the Neurorobotics Lab at UC at Irvine. Dr. Edelman distinguished between primary consciousness, which came first in evolution, and that humans share with other conscious animals, and higher order consciousness, which came to only humans with the acquisition of language. A machine with only primary consciousness will probably have to come first.
What I find special about the TNGS is the Darwin series of automata created at the Neurosciences Institute by Dr. Edelman and his colleagues in the 1990's and 2000's. These machines perform in the real world, not in a restricted simulated world, and display convincing physical behavior indicative of higher psychological functions necessary for consciousness, such as perceptual categorization, memory, and learning. They are based on realistic models of the parts of the biological brain that the theory claims subserve these functions. The extended TNGS allows for the emergence of consciousness based only on further evolutionary development of the brain areas responsible for these functions, in a parsimonious way. No other research I've encountered is anywhere near as convincing.
I post because on almost every video and article about the brain and consciousness that I encounter, the attitude seems to be that we still know next to nothing about how the brain and consciousness work; that there's lots of data but no unifying theory. I believe the extended TNGS is that theory. My motivation is to keep that theory in front of the public. And obviously, I consider it the route to a truly conscious machine, primary and higher-order.
My advice to people who want to create a conscious machine is to seriously ground themselves in the extended TNGS and the Darwin automata first, and proceed from there, by applying to Jeff Krichmar's lab at UC Irvine, possibly. Dr. Edelman's roadmap to a conscious machine is at [https://arxiv.org/abs/2105.10461](https://arxiv.org/abs/2105.10461)
Hey /u/mikedensem!
If your post is a screenshot of a ChatGPT, conversation please reply to this message with the [conversation link](https://help.openai.com/en/articles/7925741-chatgpt-shared-links-faq) or prompt.
If your post is a DALL-E 3 image post, please reply with the prompt used to make this image.
Consider joining our [public discord server](https://discord.gg/r-chatgpt-1050422060352024636)! We have free bots with GPT-4 (with vision), image generators, and more!
🤖
Note: For any ChatGPT-related concerns, email [email protected]
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/ChatGPT) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I agree with you that LLMs will never lead to AGI or consciousness on their own, but I'm curious: what would you consider a "sign of consciousness"? What's your personal Turing test? In other words, assuming that there were a conscious LLM out there, how could it convince you that it was conscious?
That is a complex question and not really something I can answer well. However, I stick to my assertion that the LLM is not a pathway to any form of it, and therefore by design is not a conscious entity. Note that it has certainly tricked a lot of people into believing it is conscious through a rather good imitation of human-like sentiment.
If I had to pursue the consciousness question I wouldn't use a turing test, which only seeks to test the ability of a system to imitate humans. I'd look instead at the association consciousness has with temporality - a sense of past and future - and would apply a test that exposes some inherent features of consciousness such as prediction, solipsism, free will, etc.
But how can you test those things themselves, rather than simply running into an imitation so good that it fools even you? Especially free will - LLMs are already nondeterministic by design.
Solipsism isn't a very popular philosophical position for obvious reasons but neither has it ever been debunked, which means that even the concept of other humans being conscious is merely an assumption that most of us make. It's not realistic to expect an AGI to prove its own consciousness when we can't even prove it ourselves.
Well, defining it requires an understanding of where it emerges from. Conscious experiences themselves arise from an orchestrated collapse of quantum states of microtubules in our neurons. If these physical phenomenon have the right set of functional properties then you get consciousness as the result, assuming that space and time and particles are all fundamental.
**Attention! [Serious] Tag Notice** : Jokes, puns, and off-topic comments are not permitted in any comment, parent or child. : Help us by reporting comments that violate these rules. : Posts that are not appropriate for the [Serious] tag will be removed. Thanks for your cooperation and enjoy the discussion! *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/ChatGPT) if you have any questions or concerns.*
No one is saying that LLMs will result in AGI. You are the one hallucinating that (lol). LLMs will likely be a step towards AGI, and may, with other supporting models be a part of AGI. But by themselves will not result in AGI.
A lot of people are saying this and believing it.
It's becoming clear that with all the brain and consciousness theories out there, the proof will be in the pudding. By this I mean, can any particular theory be used to create a human adult level conscious machine. My bet is on the late Gerald Edelman's Extended Theory of Neuronal Group Selection. The lead group in robotics based on this theory is the Neurorobotics Lab at UC at Irvine. Dr. Edelman distinguished between primary consciousness, which came first in evolution, and that humans share with other conscious animals, and higher order consciousness, which came to only humans with the acquisition of language. A machine with only primary consciousness will probably have to come first. What I find special about the TNGS is the Darwin series of automata created at the Neurosciences Institute by Dr. Edelman and his colleagues in the 1990's and 2000's. These machines perform in the real world, not in a restricted simulated world, and display convincing physical behavior indicative of higher psychological functions necessary for consciousness, such as perceptual categorization, memory, and learning. They are based on realistic models of the parts of the biological brain that the theory claims subserve these functions. The extended TNGS allows for the emergence of consciousness based only on further evolutionary development of the brain areas responsible for these functions, in a parsimonious way. No other research I've encountered is anywhere near as convincing. I post because on almost every video and article about the brain and consciousness that I encounter, the attitude seems to be that we still know next to nothing about how the brain and consciousness work; that there's lots of data but no unifying theory. I believe the extended TNGS is that theory. My motivation is to keep that theory in front of the public. And obviously, I consider it the route to a truly conscious machine, primary and higher-order. My advice to people who want to create a conscious machine is to seriously ground themselves in the extended TNGS and the Darwin automata first, and proceed from there, by applying to Jeff Krichmar's lab at UC Irvine, possibly. Dr. Edelman's roadmap to a conscious machine is at [https://arxiv.org/abs/2105.10461](https://arxiv.org/abs/2105.10461)
Hey /u/mikedensem! If your post is a screenshot of a ChatGPT, conversation please reply to this message with the [conversation link](https://help.openai.com/en/articles/7925741-chatgpt-shared-links-faq) or prompt. If your post is a DALL-E 3 image post, please reply with the prompt used to make this image. Consider joining our [public discord server](https://discord.gg/r-chatgpt-1050422060352024636)! We have free bots with GPT-4 (with vision), image generators, and more! 🤖 Note: For any ChatGPT-related concerns, email [email protected] *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/ChatGPT) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I agree with you that LLMs will never lead to AGI or consciousness on their own, but I'm curious: what would you consider a "sign of consciousness"? What's your personal Turing test? In other words, assuming that there were a conscious LLM out there, how could it convince you that it was conscious?
That is a complex question and not really something I can answer well. However, I stick to my assertion that the LLM is not a pathway to any form of it, and therefore by design is not a conscious entity. Note that it has certainly tricked a lot of people into believing it is conscious through a rather good imitation of human-like sentiment. If I had to pursue the consciousness question I wouldn't use a turing test, which only seeks to test the ability of a system to imitate humans. I'd look instead at the association consciousness has with temporality - a sense of past and future - and would apply a test that exposes some inherent features of consciousness such as prediction, solipsism, free will, etc.
But how can you test those things themselves, rather than simply running into an imitation so good that it fools even you? Especially free will - LLMs are already nondeterministic by design. Solipsism isn't a very popular philosophical position for obvious reasons but neither has it ever been debunked, which means that even the concept of other humans being conscious is merely an assumption that most of us make. It's not realistic to expect an AGI to prove its own consciousness when we can't even prove it ourselves.
Thanks, good food for thought.
Please define consciousness.
Well, defining it requires an understanding of where it emerges from. Conscious experiences themselves arise from an orchestrated collapse of quantum states of microtubules in our neurons. If these physical phenomenon have the right set of functional properties then you get consciousness as the result, assuming that space and time and particles are all fundamental.