On Tuesday, September 22, 2026, at 10:14 AM, Matt Mahoney wrote: > the evidence that consciousness is indistinguishable from next token > prediction in the Turing test There is no such evidence. So who here are the ones who are only believing what they wish to be true? I would *love* it if phenomenal consciousness were more concrete and transparent - it would empower those who wish to create life *and* make many ethical questions significantly easier. But unlike you, I accept the hard truth that things can be real without being knowable, and questions can be meaningful without being answerable.
First-person subjective experience need not have anything to do with the supernatural. But it's very arrogant of you to present your favored theory about which natural mechanism produces it as if it were a fact, when that question is far from settled and (due to limitations of our exploratory tools) may never be. If a valid test for consciousness is possible, there is no surety that it is the Turing test. I could just as easily assert that the correct test for consciousness is magnetoencephalography, and LLMs would fail ... because, assuming we could give a computer instantiating an LLM the analog of a magnetoencephalogram, it would not have anything like the same pattern of EM fields as a human/animal brain. ------------------------------------------ Artificial General Intelligence List: AGI Permalink: https://agi.topicbox.com/groups/agi/T9e51fc70bbc4e9fc-M13da309f2c60f6f143480ff2 Delivery options: https://agi.topicbox.com/groups/agi/subscription
