453
rule
(lemmy.blahaj.zone)
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 08 Jun 2026
453 points (100.0% liked)
196
6381 readers
1890 users here now
Community Rules
You must post before you leave
Be nice. Assume others have good intent (within reason).
Block or ignore posts, comments, and users that irritate you in some way rather than engaging. Report if they are actually breaking community rules.
Use content warnings and/or mark as NSFW when appropriate. Most posts with content warnings likely need to be marked NSFW.
Most 196 posts are memes, shitposts, cute images, or even just recent things that happened, etc. There is no real theme, but try to avoid posts that are very inflammatory, offensive, very low quality, or very "off topic".
Bigotry is not allowed, this includes (but is not limited to): Homophobia, Transphobia, Racism, Sexism, Abelism, Classism, or discrimination based on things like Ethnicity, Nationality, Language, or Religion.
Avoid shilling for corporations, posting advertisements, or promoting exploitation of workers.
Proselytization, support, or defense of authoritarianism is not welcome. This includes but is not limited to: imperialism, nationalism, genocide denial, ethnic or racial supremacy, fascism, Nazism, Marxism-Leninism, Maoism, etc.
Avoid AI generated content.
Avoid misinformation.
Avoid incomprehensible posts.
No threats or personal attacks.
No spam.
Moderator Guidelines
Moderator Guidelines
- Don’t be mean to users. Be gentle or neutral.
- Most moderator actions which have a modlog message should include your username.
- When in doubt about whether or not a user is problematic, send them a DM.
- Don’t waste time debating/arguing with problematic users.
- Assume the best, but don’t tolerate sealioning/just asking questions/concern trolling.
- Ask another mod to take over cases you struggle with, if you get tired, or when things get personal.
- Ask the other mods for advice when things get complicated.
- Share everything you do in the mod matrix, both so several mods aren't unknowingly handling the same issues, but also so you can receive feedback on what you intend to do.
- Don't rush mod actions. If a case doesn't need to be handled right away, consider taking a short break before getting to it. This is to say, cool down and make room for feedback.
- Don’t perform too much moderation in the comments, except if you want a verdict to be public or to ask people to dial a convo down/stop. Single comment warnings are okay.
- Send users concise DMs about verdicts about them, such as bans etc, except in cases where it is clear we don’t want them at all, such as obvious transphobes. No need to notify someone they haven’t been banned of course.
- Explain to a user why their behavior is problematic and how it is distressing others rather than engage with whatever they are saying. Ask them to avoid this in the future and send them packing if they do not comply.
- First warn users, then temp ban them, then finally perma ban them when they break the rules or act inappropriately. Skip steps if necessary.
- Use neutral statements like “this statement can be considered transphobic” rather than “you are being transphobic”.
- No large decisions or actions without community input (polls or meta posts f.ex.).
- Large internal decisions (such as ousting a mod) might require a vote, needing more than 50% of the votes to pass. Also consider asking the community for feedback.
- Remember you are a voluntary moderator. You don’t get paid. Take a break when you need one. Perhaps ask another moderator to step in if necessary.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
really? i would imagine if we were to simulate a humans / some other animals brain, it could feel things like the real one can. kinda like in this fly brain digitalization experiment, but on a larger scale.
~something~ ~something~ ~amazing~ ~digital~ ~circus~ ~something~ ~something-....~ ~(u~ ~have~ ~heard~ ~nothing...)~
EDIT: here a better link for that fly project in case anyone cares.
Simulating something like a brain didn’t mean it’s alive or feels. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_room
That's a controversial thought experiment rather than a proven fact. There's no proof yet that consciousness isn't 'just' a computation, albeit one done by brain tissue rather than a regular computer, and if that's the case, then the Church Turing Thesis applies, and the same computation can be done on a different computer without changing its nature.
yyyyes, its interesting how fast the discussion turns from "can machines feel?" to "can we feel?" to "is the mind just computation?" down to asking if everything is deterministic or not... whatever - discussions are fun
That's not really what the Chinese Room thought experiment is about though. That was more about output not necessarily being proof of a mind (which is an awesome argument against early LLMs) but the more you abstract and pick at it, the harder it gets to keep that argument.
No one understands what their neurons are doing and usually what we describe as the mind is the thoughts above them, or the narration, or the images, or feelings. We'd certainly consider the English-speaker conscious in the experiment even though they're just following the steps to produce the expected characters, so does that mean if a program observes itself and has new thoughts above them, that it's conscious then? Is an LLM conscious if its input is the process of another LLM?
I mean, probably not. I wouldn't say so. The question is how complex of a system does it take to be 'conscious'? At what level of introspection does a thought become real? If someone could perfectly simulate every cell, every neuron, every chemical reaction in a human body, what precisely would be stopping it from being conscious? I'm not sure that any answer other than a 'soul' makes any sense, if you believe in such a thing.
I dunno. Just kinda thinking out loud. I think consciousness is a lot lower bar than people give credit for, personally.
To me, the biggest argument against llms being conscious is how often they change their "mind." A conscious being would have an awareness of its own thoughts and would both have opinions of its own and also an epistemological framework (though not necessarily a good one) for why something is or isn't true.
I'll start believing llms are conscious when they can argue at least as well as a four year old can.
I think there's something to this, but I would push it up one more level into a sense of self. You can train an LLM to be stubborn (a lot of early adopters might remember LLMs arguing vehemently that current news wasn't correct because the LLMs didn't have access to the internet and their training data was months old) and honestly, someone who didn't change their mind when presented new, conflicting information would make me wonder if they're less conscious rather than more.
But when these sorts of tests come up, I always think about pets. My cat can't argue, clearly has very few, if any thoughts (although she's my brilliant, wonderful, devious, awful, sweet literal daughter), and her opinions largely revolve around me letting her outside and giving her treats, but I would definitely consider her conscious.
Personally, and now I'm really off the deep end of unsubstantiated thinking, I think LLMs are very much like a small talk machine. Like, you know how when you're chatting casually and you're not really thinking about the words you're saying, they're just vaguely in the shape of expected conversation? I think LLMs are that. I mean, like a fancy version of it, but kinda the same thing–connected words and sentences that all definitely read mostly correct, but don't really have actual thought behind them.
I think there are a bunch of components missing to complete the picture so that a majority of people actually see consciousness in a machine, but I definitely think LLMs are a piece of it. It's a shame so many resources are dumped into perfecting what is (again, in my opinion) essentially just a small-talk machine when we could be developing literally all of the rest of it instead. If there were a proper 'world model' to understand how and why things move in the world, a global research database with which to pull factual data from exclusively and double check answers against, and a higher level narrator to pull all of this together and consider before replying, I think I'd be convinced that we're seeing consciousness. Not human consciousness, but something else, not unlike how other animals might compare to humans.
I wonder what your cat would say if she could talk. I imagine she would surprise you.
But yeah, obviously you can train an llm to be stubborn, but that's only half of it. The algorithm doesn't have a sense of self and doesn't have a sense of something being "true" or "false." So it has no heuristics for whether or not it should agree with or disagree with you and doesn't have opinions of its own.
Personally I happen to think human consciousness isn't that different from other animals, we just happened to get the right combination of long lifespan + language + tool use + very social and cooperative so that we could develop generational knowledge on a societal level through oral traditions and writing.
Humans aren't just smart because our brains are better, we're smarter because we're educated.
I think I pretty much agree with you on everything you've said here. The sense of self is something I mentioned as well, I just wanted to distinguish it from having an opinion because that can get kinda muddled with sticking with an argument rather than actually having the position.
And to be clear, I'm not saying my cat doesn't have thoughts. Maybe I'm anthropomorphizing a bit, but I definitely feel like she does have ideas and tries to convey them. She makes a specific "don't do that/stop/I don't like that" noise and a "happy/good/more" noise and has different tones when she wants attention or when she wants me to do something for her. I can see it in her when she sees something she wants to knock over and she's 'thinking about it'. (Edit: sorry, here's where I realize I wasn't very clear. My last comment was more a joke about my cat being a dumbass but definitely being conscious; I didn't mean to give the impression that I don't think she has thoughts. More that I see glimmers here and there that I would guess are thoughts, but don't really have any kind of real proof beyond what I can relate to.)
I wouldn't say human consciousness is that different from animals, either, I just think the capacity and predisposition might be slightly different for different types of thought. I think we can see the same in people, though, too. Something that's always really blown my mind is that people can literally think differently. Like, some people don't have an internal narrator. Some people can't visualize images, or visualize new images. Some people can't picture 3-Dimensional images. Some people exclusively have feelings instead of those things.
I definitely agree that age and language and education and capabilities (like our dexterity) all play into it, but I don't think that is necessarily the only thing.
Oh ok 😅
Yeah with that clarification I think we agree.
You should check out the button things that let dogs and cats talk. Some of those animals are surprisingly opinionated and I think you'd enjoy seeing it for yourself
Lovely conversation between you and @MissesAutumnRains@lemmy.blahaj.zone!
I'll add a point that maybe LLMs don't have a "personality" or sense of self by design, and not by any inherent limitation other than that it would cause us even more ethical problems that they already do...
Sort of like a child that we're educating, but instead of encouraging them to develop their own personality and sense of self, we're in fact working actively to prevent that...
That's a pretty dark thought. I'm gonna hole that consciousness isn't a spectrum and that llms aren't, like, partially conscious or something.
oh wait we r talking about LMs?
i was awondering why peeps seemed to binary against my comment since it wasnt even about that but now it makes more sense...
oh i know about the chinese room dont worry >v<
how can we be sure that people has real feels? is consciousness just scaling "situational awareness" to absurd levels?
i feel like the chinese room is a fun thought experiment which opens more questions about animals (including humans) than about if virtual human copies on digital hardware live or feel.
i feel like in "which reality" an animal is simulated doesn't determine if it has "true feels" as we are crossing between physics and psychology here... and those don't mix well i think.
EDIT: the above paragraph only holds if one assumes that "being alive" and "feeling" is possible with just the laws of physics and math and such and no magic extra ingredient.