economist.com
Humanity has the debate about AI consciousness backwards
https://archive.ph/uLYYU Related: Don’t mistake chatbot intelligence for consciousness - https://www.economist.com/by-invitation/2026/08/20/dont-mist..., https://archive.ph/IeSZg
https://archive.ph/uLYYU Related: Don’t mistake chatbot intelligence for consciousness - https://www.economist.com/by-invitation/2026/08/20/dont-mist..., https://archive.ph/IeSZg
评论
5 条预览评论 · 正在加载完整讨论请先登录 h4cker 账号,然后连接 Hacker News 后发表评论。
It's hard to read this article and keep track of all the philosophical confusions at once. Whether or not something is conscious (has subjective experience) is independent of whether humans care about it. Whether or not something is a moral patient (an entity worthy of consideration by moral agents) is independent of both human care and consciousness. Of course, we might try to argue that consciousness implies moral patienthood or vice versa, but that's an argument, not a definition. The short paragraph about Descartes has at least three errors. (1) The cogito argument is about thinking, not qualia. (2) The subjective nature of qualia does not imply that they aren't real or that they're socially constructed. (3) He conflates the existence of a self with consciousness. The core premise is not only dubious scientifically (an alien species can't be conscious until humans discover it?), but also deeply problematic. It would imply that it's morally permissible to torture a sentient being as long as no human cares about it.
Quoting from the Permutation City by Greg Egan: "Opponents replied that when you modeled a hurricane, nobody got wet. When you modeled a fusion power plant, no energy was produced. When you modeled digestion and metabolism, no nutrients were consumed – no real digestion took place. So, when you modeled the human brain, why should you expect real thought to occur?"
LLMs are trained to produce outputs that humans would find reasonable. That's it. They don't do anything else. To say they have feelings and that they can think/reason is insane.
If I understand the central argument, which is confusingly stated, the claim is that "consciousness" is a socially-determined, subjective, descriptor for certain things that one cares about. How does this make any sense? If I care about my teddy bear enough it'll gain consciousness?
Reminds me of the Rick and Morty pilot. "They're just robots, Morty!" *Blood splurt "They're not robots, Rick!" "I mean they're bureaucrats, Morty. I don't respect them."