Is that right? Think of code that draws a square, the representation of that code in storage, the movement of electrons, and the 'actual' square on the screen -- these are all to us transcriptions of same thing across different domains or media, and we can deterministically translate back and forth between them, but there's no real, actual, essential identity property. The code isn't the square. The electricity isn't the code. The storage isn't the electricity.

I think of LLM reasoning and output similarly. The underlying graph of weights, matrices, and other data aren't knowledge, understanding, or language. 'Translating' the system's output to language is jusas valid and correct as translating it into some visual representation that would be incoherent to us, like a sequence of flashing lights or imperceptible noise patterns projected over an image of a dog.

I guess this is all a very long winded way of restating Chinese-room problem: we feed the man in the room a message; he returns one that, for all the world, is indistinguishable from a "real" response that you and I might send, but, like you said, he has no access to sense data. He also has no access to the biology underlying real mental processes. He also doesn't have any personhood that we can discern. He has, rather, gradually developed through reinforcement the tendency to provide responses approximating all of all of that.

I'm not sure the epistemological question "does he understand" (which is what the Chinese-room problem asks) has any meaningful answer. There's no mind, so there's no understanding. What there is, rather, is a system that generate patterns that we map to language and that our brains therefore map to communication, personhood, meaning, etc. It's the square I mentioned earlier. It's to us a convincing simulacrum, and it may be faithful enough to us to stand in those things, but that's not what it is.

My sense is that LLMs are (a) the big-data Pyramids of Giza and (b) a consequence of hardware and software developing ways of generating abstractions that capture and generate more complex patterns than were previously possible to capture or generate in a manner comprehensible to humans. Everything humans do follows some kind of pattern. Language is the perfect way for a machine to capture that, because is simpler than the world itself and has clear rules and patterns, encoded in representations computers already have, that, modeled well enough, can generate output indistinguishable from the real thing -- what you or I might do with it.

But the pattern matching that it does, and that we translate into language, is much more numerically rigorous and complex than anything you or I consciously do with words (hell, most people can't even figure out when to use "lie" vs "lay") and not doing what you or I do with it. It's not language. It's the square on the screen.

> That's exactly what I was saying. Rendering a few widgets shouldn't pin your CPU or GPU because it's so little work.

Your comment doesn't say this at all:

> > This is the kind of thing usually a human notices and says 'dont do that, that is kind of crazy'.

> It's not crazy. That is literally what 99.99% of video games do. They repaint everything constantly, only limited by either your vsync rate or hardware.

Am I missing something? Are you referring to some other part of the thread?

If you nevertheless are certain that that was or is the goal of one of the US's two major political parties, then you've reached a perplexing conclusion based on, I can only guess, no evidence, evidence imagined, evidence misunderstood, or evidence contained in a source that should be tossed into the garbage can.

This critique had its heyday in the 2000 election. I can't fathom still holding fast to it. The last 26 years have been a continuing, relentless stream of evidence to the contrary.

It's really unfortunate that people who are likeliest to make terrible choices are probably also likely to make the choice to have kids. A lot of people who choose not to have kids generally know themselves well enough to make the right choice, which also means that they'd probably be better parents than a lot of the clueless people who wind up with kids they never should have had.

Still, my wife and I both feel that parenting is the best thing we've ever done or will ever do. It's everything I hoped it would be -- and much more besides. The benefits are innumerable for us.

Whether something is conscious is important for many reasons, not least the ethical implications. You and I have internal lives, and we expect others to respect that somewhat, because ignoring it is hypocrisy (if you ignore my wishes, should anybody care about yours?) and cruelty (ignoring my wishes causes me to suffer).

Something doesn't need to be empirically verifiable, let alone scientifically, to be true. Neither of us can prove that we have internal lives, but neither of us questions it -- and we consider it important enough that most of us think it entitles us to certain rights.

Absolutely none of this is amorphous. It's precise and unambiguous, and has enormous implications. History also shows everywhere that we're better, kinder, and more responsible when we choose to care about it.

Whether LLMs are conscious matters in more practical ways, too, because beliefs about these things alter the way people use and think about them. If I think an LLM is conscious, then I think it's capable of something like knowledge or values. Human beings, moreover, are social creatures. These tools are dangerous and seductive precisely because they tap into that part of us. Denying LLMs are conscious and rejecting the parts of them that take advantage of our social-animal wetware is intellectual self-defense. I'm not sure how effective it is (it doesn't stop us from responding to the convincing social cues that the tools feed us), but I have to think it's better than nothing, and it's certainly less dangerous than the belief that the tools are conscious.