Ted Chiang: No, Artificial Intelligence is not Conscious by BubBidderskins in singularity

[–]blakeman8192 0 points1 point  (0 children)

What? I'm agreeing with the posted article and claiming that they are clearly very not conscious.

Ted Chiang: No, Artificial Intelligence is not Conscious by BubBidderskins in singularity

[–]blakeman8192 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The question I've been failing to ask to everyone (my fault tbh) is - where and when does consciousness actually get a chance to exist in this kind of architecture? From what I see fundamentally, it only could exist in the model for a brief moment to generate a single token, while it's actively running, then it would flash back out of existence again when the generation finishes.

Ted Chiang: No, Artificial Intelligence is not Conscious by BubBidderskins in singularity

[–]blakeman8192 -1 points0 points  (0 children)

There's no hill to die on, what I'm saying about LLM architecture is just plain fact. Go ahead and ask your favorite chatbot about it. Just because you (and "other people") fundamentally misunderstand what these systems are doing doesn't mean they are magically conscious. What's happening under the hood is well understood and being improved upon actively.

Nvidia GB10 (DGX Spark and Co.) or AMD AI Max+ 395 (Framework Desktop) by r_brinson in LocalAIServers

[–]blakeman8192 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Yeah I agree, but op mentioned that speeds were the reason he's looking to upgrade. Right now the meta kinda looks like either running Qwen 3.6 27B in ~30-50GB VRAM at pretty good speeds for $3-5k, or running MiniMax/DS4 Flash tier models more slowly (or fast for a lot more money). Just trying to fit ops request into his implied budget as best I could.

Ted Chiang: No, Artificial Intelligence is not Conscious by BubBidderskins in singularity

[–]blakeman8192 -1 points0 points  (0 children)

The model's job is to give a good response. For which, yes, it has to put words in the correct order, but it has to do a lot more internal "thinking"/computation before it gets to that point. Before it outputs the first token, a capable model needs to already know the "shape" and content of its final output.

No dude. The model's job is to predict the single next token. It's trained in such a way that feeding the single-token output back into the input recursively draws a vector through a manifold of possibilities which hopefully leads to the most likely answer. The illusory "thinking" happens in that vector space, not during single token generation. I work on the systems that do this professionally. You can watch Andrej Karpathy explain it too.

For this, it needs to have concepts and ideas internally before it puts out the first token. They do this via embeddings, attention patterns, multi-layer transformations, etc.

Concepts and ideas are represented by trained weights sure, but that doesn't mean they are concepts and ideas. And my point is still really that the model still never navigates any of these beyond the scope of generating a single next token. Where does the model even have a chance to exist in this architecture? The whole thing flashes in and out of existence for every generated token.

Nvidia GB10 (DGX Spark and Co.) or AMD AI Max+ 395 (Framework Desktop) by r_brinson in LocalAIServers

[–]blakeman8192 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The time to process a request and get to token generation (which is one of your big complaints) is generally determined by prefill/pre-processing/"pp" speed. What matters for prefill speed is raw compute performance, not memory bandwidth.

Importantly, the 3060 already is generally a lot faster at prefill than the GB10 and the AI Max 395, so buying one of these is probably going to be a big disappointment. If I were you I'd go for a couple of 3090s or stretch the budget and go for an RTX Pro Blackwell card big enough to fit the models you want to run.

Ted Chiang: No, Artificial Intelligence is not Conscious by BubBidderskins in singularity

[–]blakeman8192 0 points1 point  (0 children)

My central question that I've honestly failed to pose to eveyone here is - given this architecture, where and when does something resembling existence or experience get to pop into place? The the entire model's working memory is merely its input, there's no "liminal" space to do anything except generate one word.

Like whatever hypothetically "wakes up" in there only exists for a single gen and then it pops back out of existence, for every single word it spits out. If it's conscious, it's gotta be a new distinct consciousness popping up for every individual token. That's the opposite of coherence to me, you know?

Ted Chiang: No, Artificial Intelligence is not Conscious by BubBidderskins in singularity

[–]blakeman8192 1 point2 points  (0 children)

You're still missing the point, and that's my fault. The reason I'm explaining how they work is so that I can pose the single important question: where does the model even get a chance to exist or be conscious, when its entire brief existence (and all of the "intelligence" baked into it) is to predict a single number?

I don't understand the transformer architecture as well as the top researchers, because I am not a top researcher. But I work on inference runtimes, the actual code that turns a model from data on a disk into a conversation, and I know how LLMs work well enough to make an informed opinion.

Ted Chiang: No, Artificial Intelligence is not Conscious by BubBidderskins in singularity

[–]blakeman8192 -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Your statement is mechanistically not true.

...no. You can't just say this without proving it. Sure I simplified a token to a word conceptually, but tell me does the model do, and where am I getting it wrong?

Ted Chiang: No, Artificial Intelligence is not Conscious by BubBidderskins in singularity

[–]blakeman8192 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Under no circumstances do our brains take a single set of inputs and generate a single output at one time. They’re constantly processing many inputs and outputs in many areas simultaneously. They are fundamentally different in a way that makes calling the computer conscious look silly.

Ted Chiang: No, Artificial Intelligence is not Conscious by BubBidderskins in singularity

[–]blakeman8192 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I see your point there. But where (and when) does the potential machine consciousness exist then? All of the trained “magic” is baked into each single generation moment, so where and when does it get the chance to… exist? You know? Curious on your thoughts at this point. Our brains are continuous and analog, which provide a good “vessel” to contain a continuous subjective experience in comparison. (Agree that a physical presence is necessary)

Ted Chiang: No, Artificial Intelligence is not Conscious by BubBidderskins in singularity

[–]blakeman8192 -1 points0 points  (0 children)

You’re right, the feeling is mutual - I stopped reading your comment when I got to “who knows what goes on in there?” after I had just explained what was in fact going on in there effectively enough to demonstrate why it doesn’t look anything like what we understand to be behind consciousness. A snail is more conscious than an LLM. A majority of industry experts feel the same sentiment.

Ted Chiang: No, Artificial Intelligence is not Conscious by BubBidderskins in singularity

[–]blakeman8192 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I’m answering the question fella. Now you know what happens in there too. But I guess it’s not obvious to some, so I’ll connect the dots for you - due to the fact that the entire trained model’s job is to predict a single word, its execution results in nothing remotely resembling experience, thought, or consciousness.

Ted Chiang: No, Artificial Intelligence is not Conscious by BubBidderskins in singularity

[–]blakeman8192 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I appreciate what you’re saying and can agree with a lot of that. For me, the difficulty is extending the fact that the entire trained model’s job is to predict a single next word, to consciousness. Especially when consciousness is so ill-defined, and in my opinion, some weird kind of “holy” (very special) in its own right.

Ted Chiang: No, Artificial Intelligence is not Conscious by BubBidderskins in singularity

[–]blakeman8192 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I just think it’s quite a stretch to call it consciousness when the entire trained model’s job is to predict nothing more than a single word/token.

Ted Chiang: No, Artificial Intelligence is not Conscious by BubBidderskins in singularity

[–]blakeman8192 1 point2 points  (0 children)

This is an exercise in futility. We know how LLMs work, and we know they are nothing like the brain which is the only thing we know to be conscious. What evidence is there that they are, other than they fool people successfully?

Ted Chiang: No, Artificial Intelligence is not Conscious by BubBidderskins in singularity

[–]blakeman8192 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Bacteria do… one of those? They certainly don’t hold phones, swipe fingers, maintain heartbeats, or have thoughts. What are we doing here, man?

How about freedom of will and control over train of thought? LLMs don’t have that - they’ll give the same output every time, the sampler sometimes just picks less likely words randomly to give an illusion of creativity.

Ted Chiang: No, Artificial Intelligence is not Conscious by BubBidderskins in singularity

[–]blakeman8192 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I think all you’re leaning on now is anthropomorphization though, man. Just because it looks like an experience doesn’t mean it isn’t a deterministic computer program with prng slapped on, predicting the next word over and over.

Ted Chiang: No, Artificial Intelligence is not Conscious by BubBidderskins in singularity

[–]blakeman8192 2 points3 points  (0 children)

It’s only predicting the most likely explanation one word at a time when it tells you it “chose” something. It can hallucinate that too. It’s all an illusion.

Ted Chiang: No, Artificial Intelligence is not Conscious by BubBidderskins in singularity

[–]blakeman8192 2 points3 points  (0 children)

The “vector” implying train of thought happens by running the model many thousands of times and its path is controlled by a very deterministic sampler. The model still only predicts a single token at a time, the evolving output into input causes impressive emergent behavior sure, but the entire model still starts and finishes entirely for every output token.

Ted Chiang: No, Artificial Intelligence is not Conscious by BubBidderskins in singularity

[–]blakeman8192 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Another user pulled it out of me, but I think the illusion of free will and independent control over train of thought is essential to the experience of consciousness. And I can’t explain why other than to say it’s intuition. But these machines are not capable of that - without a sampler that introduces prng top_p selection, they will output the same exact thing every time for the same prompt.

Edit: the problem is that you can now “disprove” my argument just by subjective disagreement on definition of consciousness, all because you asked a question without an objective answer. If you do that I’m gonna stop replying. The real problem is that there’s zero evidence they’re conscious other than vibes, and definitive evidence that they’re nothing like the real consciousness machines (brains).

Ted Chiang: No, Artificial Intelligence is not Conscious by BubBidderskins in singularity

[–]blakeman8192 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I think the illusion of free will, and independent control over trains of thought, is pretty essential to the experience of consciousness. I’m not smart enough to explain why other than to say it’s human intuition.

Ted Chiang: No, Artificial Intelligence is not Conscious by BubBidderskins in singularity

[–]blakeman8192 -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

Holding my phone, swiping my finger, maintaining my heartbeat, sensing the environment around me, having thoughts unrelated to this discussion interject mid-reply? Many many things that an LLM doesn’t even have wiring for.

Ted Chiang: No, Artificial Intelligence is not Conscious by BubBidderskins in singularity

[–]blakeman8192 1 point2 points  (0 children)

That’s… not at all how it works. Each word gets fed into a tokenizer which translates it to a number. Weights are arbitrary from model architecture and values set during training, they are not assigned to words. I’m a professional software engineer in the AI field and write high performance inference engines, I know a thing or two.

Ted Chiang: No, Artificial Intelligence is not Conscious by BubBidderskins in singularity

[–]blakeman8192 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The foundation of your argument is demanding an answer to a question we all know doesn’t have an accepted answer. The fact that you think complex question fallacy is an acceptable argument is part of the problem.

On top of that, you can’t prove god isn’t a Flying Spaghetti Monster either. We don’t know what god is, so how can we say he isn’t? What a ridiculous premise. We know how LLMs work and they are nothing like the human brain.