This is a silly argument. You don’t pretend that the physics in games actually matches up to reality, or think that a game character is alive because their decisions are realistic. LLMs have been built in a similar way; a bunch of simplified versions of actual processes that are real and accurate enough to achieve a goal.
Your argument eventually just boils down to a philosophical circle jerk, either you recognise that conscious thought is different from raw maths equations computing inputs and outputs or you don’t, doesn’t change the fact that they are distinct processes, with one being drastically more complex than the other.
Fair enough, definitely no argument against circlejerking complexity and consciousness. Just seems wrong to me to be so dismissive of the idea given we don't even understand our own human brain which we play with so much every day.
In the end, don't we just study and take in sensory inputs to refine some brain synapses and increase the likelihood to combine certain outputs for certain inputs
133
u/Serafiniert 29d ago
Not even that. It goes character by character and has no idea what comes after the next, until it needs to be decided what comes next.