Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

wtfcommittee OP t1_j32han1 wrote

Reply to comment by turnip_burrito in I asked ChatGPT if it is sentient, and I can't really argue with its point by wtfcommittee

That’s not really a contradiction. It provided the dictionary definition of consciousness, and then suggested that this definition can be argued against since a few philosophers mentioned subjective experiences aren’t necessary.

It’s not saying emphatically that subjective experience is unnecessary for consciousness. Just questioning the definition.

14

bubster15 t1_j33tsg7 wrote

I like this answer personally. How does one even define consciousness? Subjective thought? I personally don’t think so but the who hell knows?

Subjective thought is Darwinism at work. We need to perceive only what helps us survive and pass our genetics, trying to get the full picture of the world is a futile cause. Evolution said screw that, let’s just smooth over the real stuff we can’t actively comprehend.

We can’t fully grasp the world around us, not even close, so what makes us more conscious than a dog? We can perceive marginally more but neither species comes even remotely close to full worldly perception.

2

eve_of_distraction t1_j34bgz0 wrote

> personally don’t think so but the who hell knows?

You don't think consciousness is defined by subjectivity?

>so what makes us more conscious than a dog?

Do you think dogs have subjective experience? It seems absurd to think they don't.

2

turnip_burrito t1_j32kbzp wrote

Nope. It's a contradiction.

The moment you define a word to mean one thing, you are no longer searching for its meaning. You have found it. You have defined it.

−19

wtfcommittee OP t1_j32l9r1 wrote

But the definition of consciousness itself is subjective. There is no fixed answer.

13

turnip_burrito t1_j32ob9d wrote

It is simple. What the definition of "consciousness" should be to begin with is subjective. But once you define something, you should not contradict it unless you explicitly change which real world things it is describing.

How silly would it be for me to define dogs as "canines kept as pets" and then later say "well, dogs don't have to be canines"? That's what has happened with ChatGPT.

−11

Feebleminded10 t1_j3346ky wrote

That makes no sense bro how the ai clearly explains its point and logic but you still don’t get it? At the end the person said reply how a teacher would too.

2

turnip_burrito t1_j3378fq wrote

It clearly explains it in a way that is incorrect.

−3

mulder0990 t1_j33hto1 wrote

Is a square a rectangle?

Things can be defined and have nuanced change based on new knowledge all while keeping its original definition.

1

turnip_burrito t1_j33mwbc wrote

Not if the definition is "B is A" and the nuanced change is "B is not A". Try making those coexist together. You can't. lol

I can't believe people are defending this. It's a chatbot. And it contradicted itself. It does this often if you play with it.

1