The mention Turing a little bit, but I really enjoyed the movie “The Imitation Game” about Turing building the “Bombe” machine and eventually breaking the Enigma code, and the effect that had on the war. Highly recommend!

The problem is as humans we don’t even understand our agree on what consciousness is in the first place. So it seems silly to even begin to assert one way or the other when it comes to computers (I’m not saying the author is doing that here, they title says “If”).

I do think deeply exploring the idea could possibly help bring us closer to understanding consciousness when it comes to ourselves & other living creatures.

The author mentions they accept “panpsychism” so I take it they accept “The hard problem of consciousness”. If I understand it correctly, in a nutshell, if you accept the hard problem, you don’t believe that brain alone can “produce” consciousness. If you reject the hard problem, consciousness and mind can be fully explained by the mechanisms of the brain and science will eventually be able to prove it.

I definitely accept the hard problem, but I find myself more in the one of the “idealism” or “neutral monism” buckets. I don’t believe the field of neuroscience is ever going to scientifically explain consciousness.

The same way neuroscience was an emergent field that combined ideas from different disciplines, I think we don’t yet have a field of study that’s looking at consciousness in the right way.

Especially as programmers, it’s easy to model the brain like it’s a computer, with CPU/ RAM/ hard drive. But science doesn’t back any of that up. Take memories for example, nobody knows where they go. The brain as far as we can tell doesn’t act like a hard drive.

I think it’s much more likely there is another “layer” of reality that Consciousness & Mind lives in that our current physics doesn’t & probably can’t explain. I think it’s likely our brains act more like an antenna that receive consciousness, rather than they are “computing” it in isolation.

If your only concern is how good is it at coding, then I don’t have an issue with using the Chinese models. Especially if you want to run it locally, they are kind of the only choice.

For any other use than coding, it’s going to have to be a hard pass from me.

Whatever. Doesn’t really matter much. My next thought is, I get that requiring an SVG is adding an extra layer of complexity as far as the art goes, but why is nobody talking about that the actual art is absolute trash?

I get it. It’s basically a meme at this point and it’s a fun game to play with the models. But my thought is it should be illuminating to anyone who is an artist that LLMs are still a long way off from taking your job :)

I’m not saying you’re right or wrong. I’m saying you aren’t adding anything to the discussion of the technology itself presented in the write up.

“When dang and tomhow ban all of us humans, only bots will remain”

So I’m afraid we’re responding to a bot face palm

It’s a demonstration of running web technologies (on the front end, and rust on the back) on a device that was never meant to accept them. And to run something outside of the assumed capabilities of the hardware for that era. I found this very interesting to be honest

But how useful is it really to get a result of “This is 80% likely chance of being LLM generated”? Or 75%, or 95%? What if the text is a mix of human written text and LLM text? How would you even begin to test that?

I suppose a text that is half human half LLM would theoretically score in the 50% range, but do you see the problem? You can slap a confidence % score on a test run, but interpreting the results leads to a whole other can of worms.

Point is there are so many variables, and it’s not clear that the result from any of the systems is even valid or applicable to help you make a decision in a real life situation.