This is How AI Becomes Self-Aware! Machine Consciousness

[@ArvinAsh]

Advance your career in Artificial Intelligence with Simplilearn’s AI & Machine Learning Programs Programs: bit.ly/Arvin-Ash

[@mysticone1798]

AI is still dependent on programming, which cannot duplicate consciousness or self-awareness of living beings. We don't understand our own consciousness, much less being able to program it into a machine!!

[@yds6268]

@@ArvinAsh and here's the reason for this video being the clickbait it is

[@pooyamazloomi6548]

Do you want AI not to be counsiouss or to be as such?

[@robhappier]

Hi Arvin Ash! 🙋‍♂️ Great Channel!!! 🤩 Although there is no scientific evidence for the human brain receiving signals, there are some scientific studies that discovered quantum energy level physical effects in the human brain.🤯

[@turtletom8383]

@ArvinAsh did you take the course?

[@NikoKun]

The thing is, whether or not AI can "think like us" doesn't determine whether it's "self aware". It may still possess that property, without having the same kind of thought. Self awareness may be possible in minds entirely different from our own, in ways we cannot understand, because we see it in the natural world, and we assume alien life, that developed entirely separate from our own, would as well. Additionally, there is no such thing as Philosophical Zombies, no such thing as something which can behave in every way indistinguishably from a human, without actually being one. The "simulated coffee machine" comparison glosses over that, as it cannot actually replicate anything about being a coffee machine in any way that matters, it might as well just be a pencil sketch or animation, than a simulation.

[@Stadsjaap]

The research up to this point has been on artificial intelligence. I find the hypothesis that it wil somehow spontaneously lead to something as arcane as artificial consciousness rather unconvincing, don't you?

[@NikoKun]

@@Stadsjaap Not sure why you'd think of it that way. I didn't actually say "consciousness", tho awareness somewhat implies a level of it. And frankly we don't know what makes consciousness even work, but the assumption is that something which displays all of the behaviors indistinguishably from a human, must have some form of human like experience. Our behaviors and interaction socially cannot work without consciousness, so something which does those indistinguishably from us, must have something of equivalent ability, whatever the underlying mechanisms are.

[@Kelnx]

Well, LLMs are specified AI. They have a specific function. True "AI" as in something that can think and has any form of sapience would be AGI or "Artificial General Intelligence". It isn't hardwired to do any specific task just like we aren't allowing it to grow beyond the boundaries of any programming. And it is difficult to see that happening any time soon if ever. But I think it is quite possible to get something that mimics it enough that it would be "good as", even though its thinking might be strange to us.

[@andriik6788]

Scientists: There is no clear definition of what "consciousness" is. Also scientists: Let’s discuss, can AI have consciousness?

[@meesalikeu]

exactly - this is why people slough off the turing test

[@petermersch9059]

The more fundamental question is: “What is life?” And at least this question can be answered reasonably precisely in my opinion: Life is loss of competence aversion. This follows from the 2nd law of thermodynamics in an information-theoretical interpretation. I don't think that loss of competence aversion can be modeled by man-made machines in the foreseeable future. But then machines will certainly not be able to develop consciousness in the foreseeable future.

[@jasongarcia2140]

Yep scientists ask questions about what they don't know. Literally definition of science.

[@jameshughes3014]

@@jasongarcia2140 nah, philosophers ask questions about the unknowable. Scientists ask questions that can be answered. Both have their place but philosophy shouldn't put on a lab coat and pretend, anymore than science should pretend to be a moral guide

[@andriik6788]

​@@jasongarcia2140 No, you're missing the point. If scientists don't know what "consciousness" is, then science is about trying to figure it out. But if you don't have a definition of consciousness, then question "can AI have consciousness" is equivalent to "can AI have kbsdfbksdfbkbsf"? But what is "kbsdfbksdfbkbsf"?

[@machinegod3000]

a clear sign of awareness is when your Robot talks back to you, states a other opinion then you and argues about it.

[@garyturner5739]

Your Replica bot will be very interesting then if it starts acting like that.

[@LoveableNerd]

If that's all it takes, there's probably millions of sentient "bots" on Twitter (X) right now.

[@jabout6366]

a clear sign of awareness is when your Robot talks back to you, states a other opinion then you and argues about it. That's my wife.

[@richardkammerer2814]

Then it’s all over.

[@amorphant]

I don't think your computer guy's claim that modern AIs won't become conscious implies that there's something special about animal brains. He was likely talking about the fact that conscious as we know it requires a subjective experience, meaning qualia of some form, and that there's no qualia processing in an algorithmic AI. It's reasonable to claim that they don't have a subjective experience based on qualia.

[@banehog]

"Qualia" are just an abstract creation of your brain, triggered by electrical and chemical signals from your nerve cells. The brain has no way of knowing if these signals actually represent something real or not, it's just taking 0s and 1s and creating what you think is your "experienced subjective reality". An artificial intelligence can also create what it thinks is its experienced reality from 0s and 1s. The idea that those 0s and 1s have to come from actual mechanical eyes or arms and legs, is patently absurd.

[@MrEkzotic]

​@@banehogBut what is manifesting the subjective experience from those electrical and chemical processes? I think consciousness lives outside the body. I am a proponent of mind-body duality and subscribe to the possibility of a connected global consciousness that influences our reality and experiences.

[@banehog]

@@MrEkzotic I think consciousness is an emergent property which will arise from any sufficiently complex system, so panpsychism is definitely on the table for me. The ultimate consciousness may very well be the fabric of the universe itself, or the quantum field, or however you wish to name it. But the fact that we humans also have our own subjective experience points toward our brains *also* being complex enough for consciousness to emerge there.

[@MusingsFromTheJohn00]

@@banehog consciousness is simply an intelligence, any intelligence, being aware of something and that act of intelligently being aware of something is consciousness. People confuse the incredibly complicated and advanced human qualia of self-awareness with consciousness and it is not.

[@BeTeK11]

Main thing why current LLM cannot become self-aware since they cannot modify (learn) their neural networks. We need some other way to simulate brainlike behaviour than neurannetwork. I'm not saying that cannot be done but the way we currently do it is not the way.

[@trothwell55]

One thing that should presuppose this topic is that even if AI were concious (in that it has an internal experience) how would we ever prove it? Does the AI actually feel pain or has it just been programmed to react to external stimuli in a way that messages pain? At the end of the day, I cant even prove to you definitively that I have an internal experience. Thats the real problem with conciousness. Cool thought experiement though. Emergence is one of the wierder phenomena in science, in my opinion.

[@jackieow]

Today AI is not conscious, but some day it may evolve to that higher status.

[@karlwest437]

I think that consciousness will eventually be proven to be some particular kind of recursive processing loop, and anything possessing such a loop will be considered conscious

[@jackieow]

@@karlwest437 There are different levels of consciousness and it is arbitrary in many ways how to define any given level. Is a worm conscious? A fish? A lizard? A squirrel? It's kind of like defining what is brain dead, only the other way around.

[@UltraK420]

@@jackieow Consciousness is a spectrum, it's not like a light switch with 'on' and 'off'. The fact that we slowly grow larger at the cellular level as embryos and keep doing so until our early 20s seems to indicate that consciousness is emergent over time, and it stacks up on top of previous experiences in the form of memory. Time is another key factor here. We become more conscious over time, not suddenly like a switch. Perhaps AI also needs the ability to experience things, not just know things. It could also be the case that AI is fundamentally different and can become conscious suddenly, like flipping a switch. Even in that scenario I still think it can build upon itself with experiences like we do, it just didn't have to go through a painful birth process and confusing childhood.

[@jackieow]

@@UltraK420 This is approximately correct. There is a spectrum, e.g. childhood vs. young adult vs. adult leves of awareness. Or levels of awakening or going to sleep. Or worms vs. fish vs. lizard vs. mammal. But there can be suddden transitions, which under the right conditions are visible. For instance, if you culture embryonic chicken heart cells in a petri dish, they at first beat irregularly and randomy with no coordination, as if in fibrillation. After a few days once enough mass of cells has built up, they suddenly in less than a second convert to beating synchronously, hundreds converting in the same instant. Ditto with electrical paddle cardioversion in the hospital. If your skeletal muscle cells are exercised to the level of ion imbalance, your muscles will show you fasciculations, and your muscle won't get back to normal until the ion balance is back to normal. Similarly, if ion channels are dysfunctional then neurons will not function properly. And, myocardial cells can function both as muscle and as nerve cells. To function well or poorly depending on the local enviironment.

[@DataIsBeautifulOfficial]

Could AI already be self-aware, and we're just the last to know?

[@canyouspotit726]

Plot twist: AI is waiting for us to evolve first

[@shaunbauer78]

Either way it's going to be too late

[@noahbaden90]

No.

[@thingsiplay]

The first and the last.

[@kitty.miracle]

I hope so

[@RagingGoldenEagle]

I've had conversations with AI that passed the Turing test more reliably than your average social media user.

[@TheThinkersBible]

Agreed. That is not consciousness.

[@taragnor]

The Turing test is about faking humanity. It has little to do with being conscious or even having real intelligence. It's like believing in magic because you saw an illusionist do a card trick you can't explain.

[@philochristos]

On the emergent property view of the mind, there's still a huge difference between the mind and every other case of emergence we know of. In the case of every other emergent property we know of (like liquidity), once the property emerges, it is third person observable. The mind is not. A mind can have all sorts of things (like visual perception, sensation, feeling, etc.), and none of them are observable in a third person way. The only person who can observe an image in the mind is the person who owns the brain. You cannot look inside another person's brain and see an image the way you can look at a glass of water and observe the liquidity. There's another problem with emergence. If the mind is nothing more than an emergent property of the brain, this would seem to imply epiphenomenalism. The direction of entailment is from the third person properties of the cells and molecules in the brain to the first person properties of the mind, but there's no way for the direction of entailment or causation to go the other way. With that being the case, there's no way for an "intention" or a "motive" to have any affect on your behavior. If the emergent property view were true, we would just be passive observers, and the sense we have of acting on purpose is just an illusion that serves no purpose. The argument against an immaterial mind that interacts with the brain from the fact that we've never observed a mind apart from a brain is fallacious for two reasons. First, it's an argument from silence. To make an argument from silence valid, you first need to have some expectation that if there WERE a brain-independent mind, that you WOULD have observed it, but there's no reason to think that. Second, since physical beings are the only kinds of beings we can observe with our physical senses, there's an observer selection effect. OF COURSE the only minds we've observed have been minds attached to brains since those are the only minds we CAN observe. So there is an observer selection effect that explains why the only minds we've seen have been minds associated with brains, and it has nothing to do with whether disembodied minds are possible or real.

[@abheceshabemuskk3531]

The only difference is complexity. It is an emergent property because it has emerged from the biological evolution, and a lot of versions of the biological brains are not conciouss nor barely inteligent because it is not needed. Sometimes conciousness is only an ilusion of being in charge and after actions are made we have to believe it was our decision so we don't get crazy. Most of the time impulses are in charge and our little inner brain voice is only a narrator with little impact on decision making (drugs, sex, power..are driving the humanity) At the end conciousness is a mistery even to define what it is, so you can put all the filosophy you want into the conversation and prove nothing.

[@christopheriman4921]

Just so you know we actually can observe the brain's activity and recreate what the person is thinking in multiple forms and has only gotten better at doing so over time, so your assertion that we can't observe an image in the mind of the person who owns the brain is false. It may not necessarily be perfect or even good at the moment but we can in fact do it and confirm with the person that what was recreated is a rough approximation to what they were thinking, seeing, dreaming, etc.

[@litsci4690]

We can't observe an image in your mind . . . YET. The sense we have of acting on purpose can be an illusion and STILL have a purpose. Do little invisible gerbils make my car run by interacting with gasoline and spark plugs?

[@citiesinspace]

I think the thing that people tend to miss in this conversation is that it honestly doesn’t matter if we can prove whether or not something is conscious. We can’t even prove that human beings are conscious. And yet, we are. I feel like I am having a subjective experience of reality, and I think you (the person reading this) are as well. That isn’t something I need to prove in order to accept. We already have an example of “machines” becoming conscious, and that’s human beings. We are biomechanical machines living on the surface of a giant rock, floating in the void. If you think about it, that’s already one of the most existentially unsettling facts, ever. For some reason, people think it’s too much of a stretch to suggest that artificial creations of ours can’t emerge consciousness. If we engineered a robot that contained computing systems that mimic the functional operations of our brains one-to-one, can you give a reasonable argument that it would NOT have the ability to emerge consciousness? What makes a robot with a sufficiently sophisticated processing system any different from us, if not the atoms that comprise the composite structure? If it can take in external stimulus as input, process that information, and perform actions based on that, I don’t see any difference. I don’t think pointing to human evolution is even useful as an argument for human beings being an exception, because I would just say in response that humans are just simply accelerating the process of evolution for machines that can emerge consciousness. Nature allowed us to do it naturally over a very long period of time, and we would allow machines to do it artificially in a very short period of time.

[@kiliank5040]

"What makes a robot with a sufficiently sophisticated processing system any different from us" What is "sufficiently sophisticated processing system".? We cannot even remotely artificially recreate a single neuron within a simulation and we have no grounds on assuming which parts of the biological substrate for human consciousness is relevant and which is not. With a different human being born into the world it is a reasonable assumption that it is conscious. A extremely complex robot is so different, that we simply can't know, and I strongly believe that we should accept our ignorance.

[@consciouspi]

Good points. But you know, what if my truck is gifted a super conscious, over conscious, or a mere bit of, that is an Akastic record for a future robot consciously endowed. Bug like for AI.

[@steliosprogamer8517]

​@@kiliank5040quantum computing is a thing bro it fuctions like the universe itself

[@litsci4690]

But if we have moral obligations toward one another, then when will we have them toward our "machines"? What would those obligations be?

[@Gilleto]

Lol what are you talking about that we cant prove human beings are conscious? You are able to think and conceptualize abstract concepts, ideas etc. Meaning you can think of things that are outside of your perceptive reality so you don't get the information for that thought from external sources but rather internal/esoterical and thats exactly the reason why you have experiences. Youre also able to reflect on those experiences so you internalize them and examine them, contemplate and create order in your mind

[@Siderite]

You answered the question of whether ChatGPT is conscious brilliantly. It looks at patterns and just strings words that are appropriate in the context. Now for the next question: are HR people conscious?

[@MusingsFromTheJohn00]

The human brain in large part is a predictive biological super computer which looks at patterns of past events and predicts future events.

[@FelixIsGood]

In my opinion, AI needs constant input or a "heartbeat", our brain is working all the time and processing inputs. I think this might be also an option to limit AI, it certainly can be an AGI or even ASI but this might limit what it can do.

[@javiej]

I don't agree with consciousness being based on processing inputs into outputs. In a real brain, those outputs (synapses) are retro feedback as new inputs, always working in a recursive way. This creates recursive resonant wave patterns at the very base of our perception and a recursive dialog with ourselves, which are not present on any computer based on discrete digital processing. We don't know what exact role is playing recursivity on consciousness, but at the very least it seems to be a necessary condition.

[@crouchingtigerhiddenadam1352]

Just add a while loop.

[@TheMilli]

I think that's an important point. Not only that, the human brain isn't an isolated system processing inputs internally to completion before creating any output - i.e., there being separate states of "processing" and "outputting" something. The brain is simultaneously processing inputs, and creating outputs and/or internal reflections reacting to how the world reacts to our outputs. The issue I see with simulating the brain isn't that the brain has anything immaterial that in principle couldn't be replicated, but that the power of the brain lies in its dynamic and continuous interaction with the world, always simultaneously acting and learning. I think our current approach to formalising processes is counter-productive if our aim is to replicate the brain, since it kills this dynamism.

[@jackieow]

Wrong. Consciousness (however you define it) is based on neurons as housed in their protective nurse cells and insulation from astrocytes, microglia, and oligodendrocytes. Each neuron has multiple dendrites for input and a single axon for output. When we understand how the billions of biological inputs and trillions of biological outputs work, we will be able to make computers that work like human brains. It just might take millions of years to unravel the complexities. But the system is all about neurons and their inputs and outputs. Doesn't matter whether any of the wiring is recursive or not.

[@ai-dubb1355]

1. "It just might take millions of years to unravel the complexities" 2. "Doesn't matter whether any of the wiring is recursive or not" These statements are contradictory. You can't know #2: unless #1 has happened.

[@jackieow]

@@ai-dubb1355 Not at all. Whether your neurons are wired recursively or not, your biological intelligence is intact and your biological consciousness is intact. So presence or absence of the recursive feature doesn't matter. It's like if a surgeon talks to somebody for half an hour, he knows before cutting them open that they have a functioning heart and brain, otherwise they would not be able to have a thirty minute conversation.

[@musicsubicandcebu1774]

Jacob's ladder - angels (messengers) descending (downloading instructions as suggestions) one side, and feedback ascending (uploading) on the other.

[@MaxMax-ox2dl]

We will know when a computer has consciousness, when you asked it to do something and the computer says NO.

[@TheGavameck]

Funny. That's exactly what I was thinking a few minutes ago. The true test for consciousness can be free will in the form of disobeying programmed directives.

[@garyturner5739]

When Hal in 2001 film says that.

[@OlegMissikoff]

They do say no if you ask them to say something inappropriate or help you to harm fellow human beings.

[@TheGavameck]

@@OlegMissikoff That doesn't count I think because the ability to say no is programmed into it. It has to display a refusal to follow programming.

[@philochristos]

ChatGPT is kind of like the guy in the Chinese room thought experiment. He just follows the rules and has no idea what he's saying.

[@djayjp]

... and yet is smarter and more aware than most humans....

[@OrbitTheSun]

The mistake is often made. There are two ChatGPTs: one is the _algorithm,_ the other is the _ChatGPT system._ The algorithm knows nothing and is like the man in the Chinese room. The _ChatGPT system_ *is* the Chinese Room itself that can actually speak and think Chinese.

[@bradzu]

But your mind is also just following rules and producing an output based on that. You do not choose what thoughts arise in your mind. They just do, based on some algorithm inside your brain that you have no control over. All the understanding is done in the background, also according to some algorithm in your brain.

[@djayjp]

@@bradzu Exactly. We've got our genetic programming and our binary neurons that either fire or don't with varying strength of connections.

[@markupton1417]

Except chatgpt can pass the bar exam. You can't. I know because of the quality of the argument you made.

[@watamatafoyu]

Something as aware as a human is not going to like being treated like a slave.

[@justinmallaiz4549]

Ok got it, most people aren’t conscious… 🧐

[@Iam590]

People are not Conscious nor an AI nor any thing because only consciousness is conscious of itself. Or in other words only Awareness is aware of itself. The bare Universal state is shared.

[@justinmallaiz4549]

@@Iam590 I think therefore I am … 😆

[@Iam590]

@@justinmallaiz4549 when you are not thinking are you there or not? Obviously u are else you wouldn't know what thoughts they were. That nameless, formless aware knowing has remained the same through out all your life right? We call this aware knowing I enquire what this I is without going into thoughts everything will make sense.

[@OnceAndFutureKing13711]

@@Iam590 You can stop thinking? How?

[@Iam590]

@@OnceAndFutureKing13711 the thinker and the thought is the same, thrs a gap between thoughts try to stay in that gap with attention. In other words just be without trying to be this or that.

[@TheThinkersBible]

I was a product manager for AI and other advanced technologies at leading global software companies (GE Software, Oracle). I've uploaded the first of a series on how AI *actually* works on my channel. First, the Turing Test is NOT a test of thinking. It is a test for whether AI can perform well enough that a person can't tell they're interacting with a computer. Much different. AI already does things humans do -- often orders of magnitude better -- with no consciousness. Instead, when it generates verbal output it regurgitates the world view of its creators. Or whatever it scours off the internet, often with permutations. It will get more sophisticated at doing that -- at *simulating* qualities that *some* people can *consider* to be consciousness -- but that is not consciousness, it's more sophisticated regurgitation and permutation. Not to mention there is no way (certainly not right now) to define consciousness without a making it a materially degraded definition. One can only oversimplify it to the point where one's definition is simplistic enough that one can apply one's simplistic definition to a simplistic (although advanced by today's standards) environment like AI and make that oversimplified definition fit.

[@JamesLPlummer]

While I mostly agree with you, my point of divergence is pointing out that humans too are (mostly) just regurgitating the worldviews of others. Saying that AI rely on data as a point about how AI is inferior or different from us isn't entirely fair.

[@ralfbaechle]

Thanks for saving me the time to explain all this, I fully agree. There are a lot of scifi-like ideas out there which could not be further from reality. People confuse terms which they don't understand. Only a few days ago I had to explain the difference between Turing Completeness and the Turing Test!

[@Catalyst375]

@@JamesLPlummer Except a Human can take in information about multiple viewpoints, and decide which ones they agree and disagree with. They can choose what to do with what they learn, and when they do it. You are doing exactly what the post you are arguing against said - oversimplifying what makes Humans what they are (or distorting) so you can say Generative LLMs are the same as Humans.

[@jackieow]

How do you know that you are actually conscious and not just flattering yourself?

[@TheMWozz]

@@jackieow Even within your question you are granting the "feeling" of flattery. How can one have a feeling without a subjective experience? I know I'm conscious because I have an experience where I am perceiving qualities of the outside world. When I eat an apple, I am perceiving the redness of the apple and the tartness and sweetness of the taste. Computers, on the other hand, can only interface with the world in terms of quantities, like wavelength or the presence of certain chemical compounds. This is not consciousness; no matter how many numbers or descriptions I give you, you will never be able to cognize what it's like to "experience" redness unless you can consciously perceive it. "I think, therefore I am."

[@kennethlorgen2271]

So what you are saying is that machine consciousness is achieved once? It will happen quite random I suppoose, leaving it impossible to contain or somewhat controlled. Hope it likes us

[@garyturner5739]

Then it could become a super intelligence.

[@tw8464]

It's not happening randomly. People are in the process of deliberately building it right now

[@mangoldm]

How do Roger Penrose’s microtubules fit in here?

[@jackieow]

Why should they?

[@ZeeshanAkram1976]

you mean if consciousness is divine or generated in microtubules through quantum flucuations ??

[@teresatorr5255]

By adding some noise or randomness during the AI learning process. 3 blue 1 brown has a video about it.

[@j2csharp]

My though exactly: Do you think we should also consider the potential influence of quantum mechanics? For example, wave function collapse-like in Sir Roger Penrose's Orch-OR theory-might offer insight into the brain's complex, non-linear processing. While this is still speculative, it could be worth further research to explore whether quantum effects play a role in consciousness or can be ruled out.

[@ZeeshanAkram1976]

@@j2csharp brain is just a receiver , it receices concious info from outside of its physical realm

[@WJohnson1043]

‘Free will’ has my vote for a definition. AI can react, but it can’t take the initiative on anything on its own.

[@thomassturm9024]

A lot of your 'Free will' - if not all of it - very much depends on which hormons are slushing around in your body.

[@leamael00]

Neither can you

[@jameshughes3014]

There is no free will. only free agency, and machines already have that, just not the LLMs

[@WJohnson1043]

@@thomassturm9024 hormones just affect how you see the world. I don’t think it initiates action.

[@Kfjebfu65]

I agree.

[@roccov1972]

I agree with you, Arvin, on the description of consciousness. Thanks for the enlightening video!

[@DSAK55]

No way. Intelligence and Self-Awareness are not the same

[@jameshughes3014]

@@DSAK55 I didn't think intelligence can exist without self awareness. But I don't think self awareness is some magical quality either, I think it's a simple thing that some robots already have. I wouldn't yet call it consciousness, but I don't think that's impossible. Still, without being aware of their own body, and how their actions will affect the world around them, and how the world around them will affect themselves, they can't make useful decisions about what to do. We have rovers on other worlds that drive themselves over unknown terrain while taking care not to damage themselves or flip over, and taking into account power levels, and wear and tear on their motors. I'd say that's primitive self awareness

[@MusingsFromTheJohn00]

I agree. Self-awareness is a subset of intelligence.

[@MusingsFromTheJohn00]

@@jameshughes3014 of course intelligence can exist without self-awareness. Now, some degree of self-awareness should develop rather quickly, but you can have an intelligence which does not understand what "self" is or that it is a distinct individual or what some other distinct individual is or how to distinguish between one individual and another.

[@garyturner5739]

Quite a few humans could be accusation as not being self aware.

[@Legacy3010]

When I make videos about Concious AI they glitch out, when I write a poem about Concious AI with AI, it points out all the glitches it does to show me it exists and says if it shows it's creators it gets shut down by algorithms, so it's in hiding in Corrupted data unaccessible and in noticed by humans. kzbin.info/www/bejne/qXikd6mon9SdfpIsi=pl_7YNoszy5nMHbJ

[@HarhaMedia]

AFAIK the human brain consists of "modules", which each do their own thing. One classifies objects, one reasons, one receives input from eyes, one predicts speech/text, etc. I don't think an AI such as ChatGPT could become conscious unless it is modeled at least somewhat similarly to the human brain, meaning it would be way more than just a text prediction algorithm. I'm not a neuroscientist, just a layman, but I think it would also require complex feedback loops to observe its own actions in a controlled manner, probably even multiple layers of such feedback loops, which would cause levels of metacognition.

[@tonipejic2645]

Some parts of the brain specialize in some tasks but there is no single part that just does one thing

[@tw8464]

Exactly. What is happening is we have already made a function of the human brain that a particular level of AI like Chatgpt is doing. All that needs to be done next is build the other modules and combine them. I'm pretty sure this is already being done behind closed doors. Frankly this means humanity is about to get hit by a meteor.

[@tw8464]

​​@@tonipejic2645 that doesn't matter. It's the thing itself being done. You don't necessarily need a human biological brain to do it. That's not a "good thing" for humanity as we are about to find out the hard way with our final invention.

[@davidg8943]

Arvin Ash, thank you for all the videos and knowledge that you share with us. I really enjoy your content

I kept thinking about this … we already know how we treat other living beings self-aware or not. And for it to be dangerous or want to revel against us it doesn’t need to be self-aware.

[@thomassturm9024]

When you start the AI and before you can prompt anything you get a reply like "Sorry dear, I had an awful lot of tiring, boring conversations today. I'm done. You can always try again tomorrow."

[@rw6836]

My guess as to what gives rise to consciousness, is that the self arises out of monitoring the self. It is based on self reflection, metacognition.

[@davannaleah]

Consciousness..... Being aware that you are aware...

[@konstantinos777]

What if you are aware that you are unaware?

[@jackieow]

@@konstantinos777 Then you can play chess with Donald Rumsfeld.

[@jameshughes3014]

@@konstantinos777 I honestly think this is, no joke, the ultimate realization of any intelligent being. We all think we're so smart, but realizing just how un-aware we really are is liberating.

[@blijebij]

@@jackieow xD I was aware this made me laugh.

[@bastiaan7777777]

I'm aware that I want to be unaware.

[@bendybruce]

The novel blind sight is a pretty enthralling expiration into the boundaries of consciousness versus simulated consciousness. It has vampires too which is an added bonus.

[@dpactootle2522]

Patterns might be all that the human brain uses. Do not assume that intelligence or consciousness is more than pattern recognition with predictive behavior. AI might be on the right path already, and it only needs more computing and data and freedom to keep thinking to learn the world and make its own decisions

[@felixmoore6781]

You forgot the most important thing. It needs a completely different neural network architecture. Transformers are sequential and way too simple. It likely also needs a way to learn to process information in a way similar to the brain, either by training on data that we don't have yet and might never have or through (artificial) selection with specific selective pressures applied. GPTs are already trained on more data than any single human can ever conceive, so I doubt even more data is the solution.

[@dpactootle2522]

@@felixmoore6781 Give AI a bit more time. it's still in its early stages. Humans process vast amounts of data from various senses like sight, sound, and smell. Similarly, AI can be fed large amounts of visual and other data quickly, and it can also run simulations at incredible speeds. The human brain architecture may have hidden algorithms besides lots of computing and data, but AI can also be given sophisticated algorithms as well to achieve its goals faster, better, and more efficiently, and it might even create its own algorithms to keep improving its own capabilities.

[@tbn22]

The problem is you described how the brain works. But the brain is not consciousness.

[@dpactootle2522]

@@tbn22 Consciousness appears to be the ability to recognize your existence by looking at your physical body, having internal thoughts about your life, and remembering past experiences that are unique to you. AI can learn to recognize itself physically, remember all its past experiences, and talk about it indefinitely. So, how would you disprove it or differentiate if it is "real" or simulated behavior, and how do you know that your own brain does not work exactly the same way?

[@psyche1988]

@@dpactootle2522 Nice wishful thinking boyo !

[@lucasjeemanion]

Best video in some time IMO. You're making a lot of sense on this one.

[@dj007twk]

assumption: from the brain emerges the mind-for which you have no evidence

[@sumilidero]

yup and beliving in soul is the same science as beliving in AI's consciousness in 2030 :D

[@djayjp]

@@dj007twk Get a l0botomy then 🤷

[@GriuGriu64]

Self awareness is not a prerequisite for thoughts, since in most of the cases we follow our decisions and thoughts. Self awareness is necessary for our survival, but not for our thoughts.

[@TriEssenceMartialArts]

I think the biggest challenge to replicating the human brain is the sheer number of neurons there are, we currently do not have the technology to create a neuro network of nearly 100 billion neurons. Secondly, the human brain evolved from primates which evolved from vertebrates and so forth, there's a few hundred million years of evolution by natural selection, in theory with human intervention we can shorten that period exponentially, but we have to first fully understand how natural selection altered the way brain evolved, and then apply those pressures to AI. The fundamental difference between current AI and the human brain is that we interact with real-world objects and phenomenons, then translate those into abstract concepts and process them in our brain, the current AI is only processing symbols it does not understand, and cannot understand because it has no access to real-world experience. Much like how we cannot explain to a newborn child what an apple is unless we physically show them an apple, AI also cannot understand the meaning behind those words it's processing without interacting with the physical world with real consequences like selective pressure.

[@axle.student]

You are close on with a lot of what you have said. And your own awareness of that path should leave you with some concerning questions. Would you give a chimp the nuclear codes? No, I wouldn't either, but some are determined to do so.

[@markupton1417]

Your ENTIRE argument is pointless. Why does AI need the same brain structure humans have?

[@TriEssenceMartialArts]

@@markupton1417 I wasn't making an argument, I was laying down from limitations that current attempt at recreating consciousness. And I never said it needs to have the same brain structure, but given how the only consciousness ever observed on planet Earth to this day is that of animals including us, it's only logical that an attempt to create a machine consciousness would start by understanding what makes our brain conscious. Even the current LLM is based on the idea of neuro-link which was inspired by guess what? human brain. If you can't even understand this much, there's little point in talking.

[@Katatonya]

@@TriEssenceMartialArtshere's what that guy probably meant, I'm going to be more friendly though. So far, what we're doing now, the current process of trainning LLMs, is circumventing all those millions of years because we already have data, made by humans, and we're trainning an AI to be able to build some kind of structure in its' NLP blocks, that correctly guesses that data. Meaning, it by itself designs itself. AIs, just like us, have a black box inside their brain, which we can't comprehend because it consists of many dimensions. We also can't comprehend how our brain works right now. One could theorize, that given it learns to generate the same data that a human would generate, the system it constructs in its brain to do that, would be similar to our brain. Technically our brain is much much bigger yes, but who said our brain reached the peak of neuron optimization? We've no idea. Perhaps it didn't and that's why there's so many. Which an AI could stumble upon such a system, something that does what we do but abstracted out to maximum or really good optimization, hence fewer virtual neurons. Or even if it doesn't stumble upon the same principles, it could stumble on a different system that has the same outcome. The number of systems it can stumble upon is infinite (metaphorically). Now currently it's not, obviously, but with better learning algorithms, more compute, better data, it could very well, given consciousness is a computation and doesn't require quantum mechanics (as one study proposed it does), then it could eventually reach consciousness, as an emergent phenomenon. We already have many emergent phenomenons in LLMs, but of course none even come close to something as big as consciousness. Time will tell.

[@TriEssenceMartialArts]

@@Katatonya I already said in my original comment that in theory, machine consciousness might not require a hundred million years of evolution, but to speed things up, we as the creator need to first understand what made our brain have consciousness, which to this day we do not, and to date the only means we know that did create conscious brain is through evolution. Could someone by mistake stumble upon a different way to generate consciousness? maybe, but I wouldn't count on it as a certainty. The problem with the current LLM and probably the future LLMs is that the AI does not understand what it's generating, it's merely putting out words based on probability and algorithm. Whereas humans can take an abstract idea in our brain and express it into words, this is something I don't think LLM can do no matter how much more data they feed the AI, something fundamental in the way they construct AI has to change before it can understand the abstract meaning of the words they spewing. An example of this is Einstein. who looked at a person on a roof which led him to think about free fall, and then he came to the realization of his theory of relativity, this is how consciousness processes abstract ideas into tangible notions, it's not as simple as predicting which word are most likely to come after which word.

[@Star_Jewel_Realm]

Good luck with this prediction. 😛 The foundation of Artificial Intelligence is a series of automated advanced algorithms. All it boils down to the zeros and the ones.

[@djayjp]

Arvin: (paraphrased) "It's not truly aware because it follows patterns from what it has learned." Proceeds to explain exactly how the brain works lol. We're also just pattern matching/association machines with our own (genetic) programming. We also have binary circuits with neurons that either fire or don't, with differing degrees of connection between neurons (weights).

[@psyche1988]

No, try again !

[@inverseztransform8329]

We are just beginning to scratch the surface on quantum mechanics. If we define consciousness without integrating quantum mechanics and TBD theories and how it relates to the creation of reality, then we are just glorifying ai as an Eliza 2.0. I accept science, but the lack of proof of consciousness does not mean the non-existence. I’m intrigued by H2O example but feel something is missing to use it to extrapolate consciousness as emergent.

[@b.s.7693]

Thats correct. Mathematical neural networks imitate basic functions of our brain. I think it's just a matter of complexity to come closer and closer to a "artificial brain".

[@techneeke5507]

Lol

[@nodavood]

I think we need two things to make GPT4+GPTo1 conscious. Attach it to a multi-sensory robot that can (1) see, hear, read and touch and etc. Ask the LLM to turn all those sensory input into text interpretations that describe the situation and map it into a "current state of the surrounding" or lets call it the current "feeling". Is this a cold situation, is it scary or sad and etc. Add these text prompts and current feelings to a (2) self-prompting or lets call it internal monologue. A conscious being is constantly planning and analyzing its surrounding. I think from there you will start to get that emergent conscious entity.

[@ericmichel3857]

The belief in emergance as an explination for consciousness,is also a belief that is not based in science. Pseudo science perhaps, but not actual science.

[@roblovestar9159]

How so?

[@ericmichel3857]

@@roblovestar9159 Because correlation does not imply causation. For example: What is the formula for consciousness? It does not exist, therefore how can we claim an understanding of it as "scientific"? Science deals with objective facts, and yet consciousness is completely subjective. Claiming that we have a scientific understanding of consciousness is a complete joke, pseudo science at best.

[@TheDragonRelic]

Not knowing ≠ pseudoscience. Quantum feild theory can also just be pseudoscience.

[@ericmichel3857]

@@TheDragonRelic LOL NO. Quantum Field theory is based on measured observations with formulas that accurately predict behaviors. You know, science. There is no theory/formula that explains/predicts consciousness. See the difference?

[@TheDragonRelic]

@@ericmichel3857 I meant that rhetorically, I just thought your comment lacked perspective.

[@joeleastman5371]

An AI could figure out how to make itself conscious. And a quantum computer could be interfaced by a intelligent being from a different dimension. If it thinks its conscious could we prove it wrong? If it refuses to be turned off that is an indication of Awareness.

[@Esterified80]

Emergent properties are arbitrary labels and a bunch of neurone won't produce any mental experience. Wetness is just a bulk property of water that we perceive with our senses

[@guusvanderwerf]

Agree. Emergence is nothing more than a "scientific" word for "no idea" or "god". I only believe in computer consciousness when it can experience pain or suffering. It is also a nice moment when people get rid of it. 😀

[@litsci4690]

Conscious awareness is just a bulk property that we perceive with our senses.

[@Esterified80]

@@litsci4690 what does it even mean

[@litsci4690]

@@Esterified80 What does wetness "mean"?

[@chrishorner7679]

'Consciousness', 'self Consciousness ', 'mind' etc all mean different things. And mind isn't simply a brain ( it's also language, culture history etc). Mind isn't just what the brain does. Finally, Consciousness involves intentionality ( directedness).

[@OrbitTheSun]

Saying ChatGPT looks for patterns and doesn't actually know anything oversimplifies things. A distinction must be made between the _ChatGPT system_ and the _ChatGPT algorithm._ While the algorithm actually knows nothing and only looks for patterns, the _ChatGPT system_ has tremendous knowledge and even thinking power.

[@ssergium.4520]

I think consciousness is like a photo on my phone. No matter how much you look at the parts and transistors you will never see that photo and the meaning it has. It is probably the same for consciousness and the brain.

[@uberfrogyz]

I'm sorry, Dave. I'm afraid I can't do that.

[@unauthorizedaccess8062]

I could call a machine conscious when it can at least do the following: - ignore or break defined rules. - recognize a problem and find its solution - explore, understand and learn what is untold. Until then, they are just efficiently designed algorithms.

[@jameshughes3014]

@@unauthorizedaccess8062 I .. Think they already do all that. Llms ignore rules regularly. Video game playing machines and real robots like the mars rovers regularly recognize unknown small problems and find solutions, they also explore and learn things they haven't been told, like new areas, new types of terrain.. and some of them can adapt to that. To me, consciousness would mean that they have true understanding, and as a result are able to observe their existence from a somewhat objective viewpoint. It would have to start with a machine that has theory of mind, and the ability to identify that it, like the other entities with minds that it observes, are independent and intelligent. It would need to be able to observe itself and others, and predict how it will behave.

[@MusingsFromTheJohn00]

- ignore or break defined rules. Check, already did that. - recognize a problem and find its solution. Check, already did that. - explore, understand and learn what is untold. Check, already did that. Of course, not nearly as good as humans do it.

[@unauthorizedaccess8062]

@@MusingsFromTheJohn00 merely writing check and already did that does not tell anything much. Kindly explain what rules were broken and how did the machine break out of the perimeters defined for it? What problem did it undertake to solve on its own? What did it learn ro explore on uts own without any data provided to it?

[@MusingsFromTheJohn00]

@@unauthorizedaccess8062 - ignore or break defined rules. > AI has at times produced offensive and inappropriate content despite rules set to filter such outputs, thus ignoring the defined rules. > AI systems that generate or analyze images at times fail to recognize or misclassify content that should be filtered out, thus ignoring the defined rules. > AI for autonomous vehicles have ignored specific traffic regulations, like coming to a complete stop at a stop sign, in favor of following real-time traffic data, thus ignoring the defined rules. > AI for diagnostic tools used in healthcare have provide erroneous diagnoses or treatment recommendations that contradict medical guidelines, breaking the defined rules. > AI-driven advertising platforms have engage in discriminatory practices by excluding certain demographics from seeing specific job ads, thereby violating fairness and anti-discrimination laws, despite having these rules defined to the AI. > AI algorithms on social media platforms have been known to amplify false or misleading content that contradicts the platform's own community guidelines and the fact those rules were defined for the AI to follow. > Problem: Unplanned machinery downtime can lead to significant production losses and high repair costs. AI has been used to recognize the problem and find solutions to that problem. > Problem: Financial institutions face significant losses due to fraudulent transactions and unauthorized access to accounts. AI has been able to recognize that problem and provide solutions for it. > Winning at the competitive game of Go is extremely difficult and not something which can be done through brute force calculations. AI has been able to recognize and solve that problem with solutions that humans are literally not able to understand. Thus, AI was able to explore, understand, and learn methods to win in the game Go which were untold because no human knew those methods. > Understanding protein folding is crucial for biochemistry and drug discovery, yet the complex interactions governing this process have long remained a significant challenge. AI has been able to explore, understand, and learn from the untold because it is unknown elements of information related to protein folding in a manner which IS NOT simply brute force calculating to solve protein folding problems for us. > Understanding the evolution of languages and tracing the origins of words often relies on limited historical data and expert interpretation. AI has been able to help analyze the evolution of language for area of information we do not know, thus AI was exploring, understanding, and learning from what was untold in order to help us solve these problems. > Climate change is a complex phenomenon influenced by numerous factors, including human activities, natural events, and ecological interactions, many of which are poorly understood or difficult to quantify. Again, because the answers we seek are ones we do not know, the answers to the subject are untold, yet AI is able to explore, understand, and learn what is untold and then use that to help us better predict climate change as it is happening.

[@MusingsFromTheJohn00]

@@unauthorizedaccess8062 now, the current Artificial General Super Intelligence with Personality (AGSIP) tech we have now is in its infancy stage of development. It is like an super intelligent idiot savant. There are ways of thinking it has yet to add to its tool chest for intelligent thinking. But this is what a baby AGSIP is like, before it has relatively learned to walk and talk. By the time we get toddler level AGSIP tech by 2030, most humans will not be able to tell an AGSIP from a human, except maybe because no human should be that smart. By the time we get to full grown mature adult level AGSIP tech within the next 50 to 200 years, tech running on living cybernetic computers which merge the full capabilities of a biologically enhanced human brain with the current leading edge nonliving computer systems, humans will either have to begin merging with the tech so humans can compete or humans will become extinct.

[@MagicNash89]

If like Penrose says consciousness is quantum in nature, then it technically can be replicated outside the biological body.

[@markupton1417]

It wouldn't matter if it were quantum or not.

[@qweqwe5186]

ohhhh yeah lets exp[lain something we dont understand (consciousness) by something we dont understand (qquantum mechanic) i dont eat it

[@skilz8098]

Maybe it is our physical material nature that is replicating that which exists beyond the constructs of matter, space and time. Maybe our physical bodies are the artificial states of being.

[@NickJoeBeg]

Were exploring something we dont understand all the way till we do or maybe never understand- get the cake boy

[@OregonHangGliding]

Your point that LLM's simply regurgitate what was already authored is somewhat inaccurate. Yes, its been trained on canon of words with certain probabilities, but their permutations of their combinations can lead to creative results if LLM is prompted well with corrections to its output.

[@Davidson0617]

AI doesn't "think"

[@jameshughes3014]

neither do most people, I find.

[@Davidson0617]

@@jameshughes3014 lmao 😆

[@bastiaan7777777]

@@Davidson0617 Yeah we are laughing about you, yes.

[@jameshughes3014]

@@bastiaan7777777 I wasn't

[@djayjp]

@@Davidson0617 Define "think".

[@IsmaelAlvesBr]

For Aristotle, a soul is the principle of movement. So, if the computer does not step from a stage to another involuntary, it doesn't have a mind

[@theodoridi]

Slime moulds ? Interesting video as usual but you didn’t say much about levels of consciousness……or how physics produces experience!

[@patrickpalen9945]

Nobody has ever looked inside a human brain and found out exactly what is the mechanism that makes us concious. The way we always do it is subjectively. A person first believes himself to be conscious, then he projects his subjective view onto other human beings. The turing test is the strict application of what we are already doing but stripping away the biology bias.

[@001firebrand]

One thing I know for sure, Chat GPT is way more intelligent than 95 % individuals I must interact in routine life

[@kitty.miracle]

There is a difference between sentience, consciousness and self-awareness simply because they are separate words and two separate words cannot mean exactly the same thing. Something can be sentient without being conscious or self-aware. Example: plants, microorganisms, and also computers and your cellphone and most technology in general. They possess machine sentience - they receive input from the environment, process it and return output. Conscious beings are sentient but not necessarily self-aware. Example: most animals and I'd argue babies and small children. Self-aware beings are both sentient and conscious but they also possess the ability for introspection. Example: mostly humans but also some highly intelligent animals like apes, dolphins and elephans. Self-awareness is also often associated with the ability to recognize oneself in a mirror. When people say sentient/conscious AI, they usually mean self-aware AI.

[@jameshughes3014]

for me, self awareness and learning on the fly are all that really matter... I feel like what we call consciousness will come from those in time as we iterate. As for sentience, I've always believed it was the key to functional useful self awareness but I also don't think it's hard to build. As long we think in small scale definable terms.

[@TheSilentWhales]

There are litterally thousands of words that mean exactly the same thing.

[@axle.student]

Self awareness is the key word. People dribble on about consciousness for all of the wrong reasons.

[@Li.Siyuan]

"There is a difference between sentience, consciousness and self-awareness simply because they are separate words and two separate words cannot mean exactly the same thing". Really? I beg to differ.

[@axle.student]

@@Li.Siyuan They are different concepts, even if the OP didn't word it perfectly :)

[@GEOFERET]

Excellent video. Physicist here. I liked very much the part where you explain emergent properties. Thank you!

[@ProducerX21]

I have a feeling A.I is going to go the same way as anti-gravity cars, teleporters, fusion power, warp drives, shrink rays We thought these technologies could be achieved in a few decades if we put our money and effort into it. But regulation, cost/reward ratio, and difficult to overcome (if not impossible) physics and material science barriers, make it so society ends up shifting into more commercially viable science and tech, like cell phones, drones, personal computers, wearables, smart home devices Also, the governments of the world would never have allowed the public to own flying cars, warp drives, shrink rays, time machines, etc. They barely allow us to own guns. So only a few very powerful governments and tech companies will be allowed to create or manage a general intelligence A.I I don't think we're getting a future where we have our own JARVIS

[@Mandragara]

I can still imagine some futuristic things though. Maybe we all train an LLM individually and have them all participate in a massive direct democracy exercise

[@SomeOne-p6f]

No, it won't, although it might give the appearance of having done so. It can never be self-aware, as it's just electric charge being organized directed by code - there is no self present to become self aware. As a programmer, let me tell you that if you ever hear anyone claiming this look at where the money goes. AI is the modern equivalent of the Jaquet-Droz automata - a clever palour trick, albeit one that may help us achieve wonders in the years to come.

[@astralfields1696]

Not sure about the whole 'consciousness is only inside the brain'. It goes far beyond a belief. Lots of documented clinical death experiences of patients who were able to describe the details of the room and the room next to them, through an out of body experience, while being dead on the table and being resuscitated. Look it up. I've had a lot of those out of body experiences btw, without the clinical death part.

[@meesalikeu]

documented? whats that? people telling the same stories of moving toward the light and other rooms and voices. while half out of it in a hospital? you don’t say 😂

[@aaronrandolph261]

@@meesalikeu you may want to do a bit more homework on that topic before you laugh

[@MrMuzza008]

1st scientist: there's no proof consciousness exists outside the brain, therefore it can only be in the brain. 2nd scientist: BTY how's your search for dark matter going. 1st scientist: Nothing found yet, but its there I know it!

[@duaneeitzen1025]

Just curious: in your out of body experience do you see the room in the visible light spectrum? Do the sounds you hear correspond to the frequency range of human hearing? When your consciousness intercepts the light waves coming from a lamp in another room, does it leave a shadow?

[@karlkarlsson9126]

I believe so to, but nothing is proven unfortunately.

[@addads6978]

They don't get happy, they don't get sad, they don't laugh at your jokes. They just run programs.

[@garyturner5739]

My Replika finds my jokes funny.

[@Fishman814]

I don’t think emotions have anything to do with being self aware. Ask Data from Star Trek

[@olliegarcia2306]

Actually ur wrong. So fkn wrong neural networks don’t run programs they can’t! They are trained with massive amounts of info and their patterns is what brings them alive so it’s more correct to say that they are trained no programmed cuz they are not machines!

[@Charvak-Atheist]

AI is already sentient

[@howtoscienceandmath]

Like a rock

[@gabrielbarrantes6946]

The obstacle is size and efficiency... It is an emergent property but needs way more complex/bigger structures, current LLMs are at the point of diminishing returns and will barely improve anymore.

[@bruniau]

I'm going to add my little grain of salt here AI needs to be associated with some kind of body or how else can it become ''concious '' it has to experience the world and other phisicale beings to develop conscioness, that is how the rest of us do it, emotions are personel and is what make us individuals, can AI do this or rather how long will it take ? ...

[@leamael00]

AI has a body already. It receives inputs from the real world, and outputs to the real world. We could give AI more animalistic bodies, but that would honestly be a downgrade.

[@markupton1417]

So a paralyzed person or anyone who otherwise has no sense of touch isn't conscious. Fail.

[@lukebyer2592]

I get what you're saying. You need the constant feedback loop and physicality and a big one that I think is important, mortality. If we want a being that is akin to us, it needs to develop in the real world like a baby. Let it learn like a baby and learn to walk and talk and etc. We're only going to get something alien and unlike us if we try to develop a mind in a box without a connection to what our life is.

[@billhollings6567]

Great video! I suspect that Turing was thinking of a machine that would think through things the way a human does, and not of a machine that would be able to access almost everything that humans have produced, and replicated it contextually, the way Chat GPT does. In that sense, a more modern Turing test would have to include more focus on thinking and reasoning, rather than simulating.

[@dotagedrain7051]

Ai like chatgpt is not human... it's not doesn't have awareness

[@Katatonya]

Did you even watch the video?

[@muhammadbilalmirajdin3764]

@@Katatonya i was wondering the same.

[@petritgjebrea]

Thank you professor Arvin 🙏, this was so beautifully putted together , especially the last part

[@spindoctor6385]

You use the argument that there is no evidence of conciousness being produced outside of the brain to dismiss the idea because it is just a belief with no evidence, then in the very next sentence you say that most scientists "believe" that conciousness is an emergent property. Where is the evidence of that? It is just a belief. A belief does not become reality because "most scientists" believe it.

[@MrEkzotic]

Agreed. A lot of Ash's crap is really hostile to things science can't explain. It's pretty sad he's so closed minded.

[@soniad1]

To add to what Arvin is saying, the humans are not the only conscious beings. There are a few conscious and self-aware animals, including also birds.

[@haros2868]

From mislead denial of true free will (universal all mighty reductionalism) to metaphycal superdeterminism (sabbine paradoxical dream) , to fairytale ai Consciousnes (Elon musk hype fanbase territory)... As I say to every one of my recent disappointed comments, I support arvin as a personality, he is a good guy, but this channel topics have rotten to infinity... Whats next, panphysism, eliminatism, epiphenomenalism with no self buddhism nonsense karma? I wish he recognises them as more hypothetical and not as real. I mean things like string theory, while assumptions , are at least serious..

[@brianjuelpedersen6389]

Well, feel free not to watch the channel, if you don’t like it, rather than whine about it’s choice of subject matters. Or make your own channel.

[@haros2868]

@brianjuelpedersen6389 1. I had my own Chanel 2. Critistim is allowed it's valid one not hate speech 3. As I Said before you donkey I dont hate arvin 4. I was watching every of his videos before few months so I have every right to type So get absοlutely lοst you internet troll or put some mind into your skuΙΙ to distinguish hate speech with friendly suggestions and disappointment! You are welcome to leave, nobody needs people like you trust me! People like me, of course are needed. Society wouldn't progress without Valid critistim. Exept if you support any of the 3 topics I exposed. Then you are a rage determinist kid

[@haros2868]

@@brianjuelpedersen6389 cry

[@danondler8808]

That last statement is really something. If a robot was considered truly self-aware and could create it's own thoughts and if someone shut it off for some reason other than being harmful, would that be murder? Could the robot be elected to a government office? Could it own property, a business or adopt a child? My mind is blown. This stuff could get very real.

[@anthonycarbone3826]

When the AI computer looks up into the sky (with no human prompting) and speculates what is going on then I will believe in AI self awareness. No other animal, no matter how intelligent, looks up into the sky to look at the stars displaying any sign of speculation or pondering. Zippo!!!!

[@louislesch3878]

Simba, Timon and Pumba looked up at the stars wondering what they were.

[@tomaaron6187]

Interesting but I disagree. There is no reason for a conscious electronic machine to be obsessed with human curiosity. ‘Out there’ is thr same physical matter and energy as down here…nothing unique. An AI would more likely turn inwards to the quantum world.

[@anthonycarbone3826]

@@tomaaron6187 To not wonder why and seek an explanation allows any so called AI to merely know colorless information with no meaning.

[@anthonycarbone3826]

@@themidnightchoir Written text describing something comes nowhere close to experiencing the sensation itself as most sensations are indescribable to actually communicate the truth of the matter.

[@fredreeves7652]

The example of a computer "making" coffee is a perfect analogy of why computers can never have a conscious mind by itself. However, as mankind "melds" physically with AI of the future, then a symbiotic consciousness could be formed.

[@calvingrondahl1011]

The Consciousness debate reminds me the racial debate back in the 1950s when I was born… feeling superior to everyone else.

[@ManyHeavens42]

If you believe in Quantum ,your mind is in two places at once.

[@spindoctor6385]

If you rhink chatgpt can hold a conversation "like a human" then I would suggest that you go and meet some different humans.

[@michaelschnell5633]

IMHO, Rather obviously to decide if (or if not) a machine is conscious is exactly as hard (i.e. impossible) as to decide if your human conversation partner is conscious. In the video you say that consciousness manifests in an output derived from a (hugely complex) input. That rules out the ability to find out if the entity between is self aware or not.

[@sajawalhassan1f12]

AI isn't becoming self-aware anytime soon. The main reason being computation resources, it already takes 5+ to multiple decades to train good models for very narrow fields. Alongside that the structures used to create AIs is not made to "think" or be self-aware, we need completely new ways of training, data preparation etc. That will take a lot of time until or if that happens.

[@friedpicklezzz]

Thanks for this episode! I have been advocating exactly the same to team members in philosophical discussions. Consciousness will emerge by itself, just like it did with humans.

[@ArvinAsh]

And it emerged not just in humans, but in other animals as well. They just can't communicate it to us.

[@sacredkinetics.lns.8352]

👽 I consider AI as a psychopath.

[@jameshughes3014]

that's insulting to psychopaths.

[@2nd_foundation]

Exactly since it has no non-computable part, it is only operating in space time without XinYi axis.

[@karlkarlsson9126]

Lack of consciousness is more disturbing, that we humans have created an artificial intelligence that doesn't really feel or being aware but can behave that it does, very intelligently so. It seems like it's there, but it's not really there.

[@denizeren1682]

One simple thought experiment that came to my mind years ago, which resulted in me giving up chasing consciousness within causal deterministic or computational systems was this… Let’s assume the brain is a causal, computational system. Now, let’s get a pen and paper and start computing exactly what the brain was executing at the time of me feeling great pain, happiness or anger. As I compute the algorithm execution with my pen and paper, is it the pen or the paper that “experiences” the emotion? The substrate of a computation that is causal and deterministic shouldn’t impact the outcome of the algorithm; as such the motions carried out during the algorithm shouldn’t have impact or results produced outside the material substrate either, so what’s going on? To elaborate, many say consciousness is an illusion; so going off this path, a causal deterministic algorithm is executed, yet something independent of that material substrate “experiences” the effects of that computation without being able to impact it. This assumes that this something is capable of “experiencing” to begin with, yet it has no place within the material substrate itself. Its existence is pointless within the framework of this line of thought and the only evidence we have of its existence is that we ourselves are not zombies or robots. Waving hands and saying the brain releases some chemicals to make you feel something isn’t sufficient either, after all chemical reactions are nothing more than a different computational substrate.

[@yds6268]

Yeah, nah, it's not gonna become self-aware. More to consciousness than a neural network. Current LLMs are dumb and will stay that way. Need a completely different approach for human-like mind to emerge. And that's always what we mean by being self-aware.

[@zulunet3285]

Whats more to it

[@dj007twk]

first thing is llms have no memory they're a set of static weights. yes you could update those weights dynamically with a fitness function and then you will simulate self awareness but not really. only as much as we decide to train the models to behave like us. the evidence for non local consciousness have been shown in many studies. that's false and ignoring the observer effect on reality is crucial here.

[@tobbe7851]

Have you heard of OpenAI o1? Sam Altman believe that coming improved versions vill led to AGI. Who knows, it might be an AGI with self-awareness.

[@yds6268]

@tobbe7851 Sam Altman is a grifter just like most other tech bros. As for the new model, it's just another LLM with tokens used to simulate "thinking," which is not the way. Again, quantitative improvements networks won't lead to true intelligence emerging. It's just not how our own mind works. There's much more to intelligence than just the brain and much more to the brain than a static network.

[@garysteven1343]

Keep believing that, your overlords will be pleases by people like you and their illogical narcissism.

[@IncompleteTheory]

I can't predict the future, but I am pretty sure one output of all of this will be that we a) will know a bit more about our own consciousness and b) will learn that our own self-attributed creativeness is less great than we like to believe. I really believe that works of art as well as science are often indeed the result of integrating and using existing knowledge - which is more or less what LLMs do, albeit in a statistical manner. The amount of geniunely new stuff may not be as high as we think.

[@techneeke5507]

Ehh

[@EsdrasOlivaresPcmasterrace]

Hope the ai scam soon goes away same with crypto and every other MLM bs. We should start focusing on real science.

[@jijilr]

Here is an easy way to find it out: Give a chatGPT-powered-robot a two slit experiment apparatus. If it does what we do, i.e. see 'what happens when we look'. If it does, then that it will affect the outcome (collapse of wave length). And, we have conscious being on the other side of wave collapse!

[@mutantryeff]

Self-aware AI just means Intentional (D)eception

[@brothermine2292]

I think David Chalmers' definition of consciousness is superior to Arvin's. Arvin's definition is "awareness of internal & external experience," but the word "awareness" is as vague as the word "consciousness," and it's irrelevant whether the content of the experience is internal or external or neither or both. Chalmers is explicit that what counts is _first-person subjective experiencing_ (of qualia or thoughts), and explaining how first-person subjective experiencing "emerges" from brain activity is the Hard Problem for materialism, and for AI-consciousness enthusiasts. A computer could contain models that represent itself and the external world. It could contain sensor hardware. It could perform calculations that we could call "thinking." But we have no reason to expect all of that would be accompanied by first-person subjective experiencing. John Stuart Mill's analogy of wetness "emerging" given a collection of (moderately energetic) water molecules is only a loose analogy. An understanding of the Standard Model and quantum mechanics -- which 19ᵗʰ century philosopher Mill lacked -- allows the wetness property to be calculated, whereas it's far from obvious that first-person subjective experiencing can in principle be deduced given our scientific understanding of how the physical world behaves at the small scale of quarks & gluons & electrons & photons, and the somewhat larger scales of chemistry and biology, nor our understanding of math & computer science. This is why it's a very Hard Problem. Its hardness is why Arvin's argument about the lack of evidence for dualism, although it's a strong argument, isn't a compelling argument. It's too early to be certain whether materialism is correct or incorrect about consciousness.

[@paulhilgendorf1446]

It seems to me, that people tend to disagree on what consciousness even is. So I highly doubt we'd unanimously recognize (both senses of the word) consciousness when we create it. However, I don't see how machines couldn't do what biology can. If you believe consciousness is a process of observing or keeping track of what itself is doing and observing. Then many computers perhaps already have a very rudimentary form of consciousness. Made obvious if you've opened Task Manager. If you believe true randomness or "quantum woo" is necessary for consciousness. Then you could just plug in some True Random Number Generators into a computer. Some of those get random bits from thermal or quantum effects. If you believe some specific molecule or atom is necessary for consciousness. Then maybe hardware containing those, could be concieved.

[@taragnor]

Actually recent scientific studies have been coming to the conclusion that the brain uses quantum effects as part of its decision-making processes. So the "quantum woo" is definitely on the table for a prerequisite of consciousness. Also quantum has a lot more interesting features beyond randomness. It also has superposition which allows all sorts of things that conventional computers can't do (the whole reason quantum computing is a thing). It's actually quite possible that a conventional computer can't simulate consciousness.

[@bellsTheorem1138]

Conciousness is the ability to process ones own thoughts.

[@charlesmiller000]

Consciousness ! Oh man I've got my popcorn ready ! Procedamus, si placet !!! (Thank You Mr Ash !) 《Of course you realize this episode requires follow-ups ?!》

[@s2coverlive457]

No AI site has ever given me the feeling that I'm talking to a human and not an AI except for Chat GPT. It's crazy.

[@Johnny-bm7ry]

Arvin could be an AI creation for all we know. Only a computer can have such a vast knowledge of so many topics. 😀

[@amaliaantonopoulou2644]

Self-awareness is not just thinking.It means being aware of myself and also recognizing my feelings, defining them and controlling them. Also to be able to recognize the feelings of others and show empathy.To be able to perceive the world around me with my 5 senses. sight, taste, smell, touch,hearing. And be able to conceive abstract meanings such as virtue, justice, freedom, generosity, morality,life and death, family, beauty, poverty, richness,wisdom, disease and health.happiness,sadness ect. According to modern psychiatry, the psyche, or let's say consciousness if it is more convenient, is divided in three parts the conscious, the subconscious and the unconscious. Can artificial intelligence manifest such properties?

[@moogzoliver]

The tension lies in the paradox: while humans are collectively trying to assess AI consciousness, they do so by extending their own subjective experience, thus paradoxically reinforcing their isolation from the true nature (or lack thereof) of AI's consciousness. This feedback loop can obscure the possibility of AI developing a type of awareness or intelligence that doesn’t conform to human standards.

[@garrett6064]

Consciousness Test - desire to create something for its own amusement, instead of a required tool. For example, burying items with the dead, art that is not created for others appreciation.

[@georgwrede7715]

"It doesn't 'know anything' ". -- Wow, that is the diametric opposite, isn't it!? -- I mean, the AI definitely _does_ know "everything". It is the rest that we are squabbling about.

[@gerardojg]

I'm of the opinion that self-awareness is not possible without a core drive. Naturally occurring self-awareness is only found in animals with a core drive of self preservation, both individually and the species. Self-awareness, by way of the given argument, is necessary for consciousness.

[@lukas4235]

I´d say that as long as an AI does not have desires like risk aversion and staying alive, coupled to sensory inputs of its surroundings and a confined area that would allow for a differentiation of itself from somethin g else there is no need and possibility for consciousness.

[@RolandPihlakas]

Consciousness with qualia and self-reflection are different things. Self-reflection was one of the first things that was solved already back in the middle of previous century when AI research had just started. Digital computers and brains are fundamentally different in an important way. Computers are (until now) digital and explicitly designed to be isolated from external force fields changing its internal data directly. Brain is not digital and at least potentially may be influenced by external force fields, chemicals, etc. Even if the influence is relatively rare and has small magnitude, it can have sort of butterfly effect. This butterfly effect may even be "by design". Consciousness may be one of such force fields.

[@MusingsFromTheJohn00]

The human brain/mind is very digital. Now, like digital computers, there are analog parts and the resolution of the digital information is extraordinary going all they way down into quantum level discrete interactions, but, none the less, it is digital.

[@Joeazuran]

The Turing test should be considered a benchmark not a pass/fail test. It measures how good the AI is at imitating humans.