The Turing test doesn’t account for state. LLMs, while they could pass that test, are idle when unprompted. They dont have a means of responding to any stimulus but those provided. If they were provided even a fraction of the stimuli provided to a real mind, they would rapidly consume all available system resources trying to respond, regardless of how many we could reasonably provide.
Also, they are fixed. LLMs do not change once put together, and only seem to based on a rolling context window they store based on their previous interactions with the subject. They cannot internalize any of that interaction to change their underlying model or its weights.
Because of these things, I believe it illustrates how the Turing test, while an important thought experiment, is incomplete regarding defining a thinking machine and the ethics surrounding it. If the machine is off if I’m not directing it and can’t functionally remember or experience anything, it can’t experience suffering or oppression or any of the things associated with its agency, freedom, or any of the philosophical underpinnings of what constitutes another entity.
While I agree with you, the issue is that this question is almost more religious than technical. Folks can rearrange the goal posts, and claim stuff like humans only respond to stimulus just stimulus is non stop and response is unbounded. They can claim things like the rolling cotext window is the conciousness.
I’ve learned to roughly steer clear because the “LLMs are conscious folks” are impossible to discuss with and it’s just kind of miserable and scary trying to engoge.
The Turing test doesn’t account for state. LLMs, while they could pass that test, are idle when unprompted. They dont have a means of responding to any stimulus but those provided. If they were provided even a fraction of the stimuli provided to a real mind, they would rapidly consume all available system resources trying to respond, regardless of how many we could reasonably provide.
Also, they are fixed. LLMs do not change once put together, and only seem to based on a rolling context window they store based on their previous interactions with the subject. They cannot internalize any of that interaction to change their underlying model or its weights.
Because of these things, I believe it illustrates how the Turing test, while an important thought experiment, is incomplete regarding defining a thinking machine and the ethics surrounding it. If the machine is off if I’m not directing it and can’t functionally remember or experience anything, it can’t experience suffering or oppression or any of the things associated with its agency, freedom, or any of the philosophical underpinnings of what constitutes another entity.
While I agree with you, the issue is that this question is almost more religious than technical. Folks can rearrange the goal posts, and claim stuff like humans only respond to stimulus just stimulus is non stop and response is unbounded. They can claim things like the rolling cotext window is the conciousness.
I’ve learned to roughly steer clear because the “LLMs are conscious folks” are impossible to discuss with and it’s just kind of miserable and scary trying to engoge.