Bear with me here, lol.
“Meaning is not an external substance waiting to be proven. It is what reality does when conscious beings encounter possibilities that can go differently.”
This feels like a useful way to think about artificial consciousness. An AI might technically become conscious or even sentient without its experience resembling animal sentience. A mind arising through silicon and computation would interact with reality differently from one shaped by metabolism, hunger, pain, reproduction, and biological evolution.
Star Trek plays with a similar idea socially, among some species, behavior that humans interpret as hostile might instead communicate respect, trust, or friendship. Different forms of life divide reality into different categories of harm, value, threat, and opportunity, so understanding them requires more than projecting human preferences onto them.
Historically, the difficult problem has been that we cannot directly know what is conscious. But perhaps we can ask whether a system has an integrated point of view within which possible outcomes become meaningfully different for that system, rather than merely being classified differently by it.
This would not prove that current AI is conscious. But could it give us a substrate independent framework for recognizing unfamiliar forms of consciousness? What is this idea missing?
You’ve been misled, then. LLMs start totally blank, and nobody knows how they work later on. It’s not like a normal program that follows rules somebody coded.
To get the next token right. That’s what gives the net a “pleasure” signal, implemented through backpropagation. Obviously, it grows the ability to handle subgoals of various kinds, but that’s the most primal impulse.
Nobody knows, I’m sure, not even the people who made it. It’s unexplainable magic… Idk, man, that sounds like either marketing, distancing to avoid legal issues, or both.
There’s totally open source models out there if you want to check what I’m saying, and lots of information on the training process, too. In mathematical terms, it’s not complicated process.
People have tried to figure out what’s going on inside, of course, and failed. Last I checked, the big advancement in interpretability was that someone figured out a tiny net that just adds two numbers.