Seth Lazar Critiques Essay on AI Consciousness
Philosopher praises human style but flags overconfident claims about denying machine awareness.
Seth Lazar posted that an essay denying AI consciousness is nicely written and distinctively human yet rests on overconfident assertions. He added that the piece was too long to finish before bed. Nora Belrose replied that she invokes the Chinese Room only as a supplementary point and rejected the charge of motivated reasoning for her view that minds can be uploaded to live for billions of years. Both comments address the same essay in the visible thread.
Combined views
4.7K
3 posts, first seen 4d ago
Reactions from ranked influencers
3 posts
This is too long for me to read in full rn because it's late and I need to go to bed. However (a) it's very nicely written; the author's overconfidence is extremely winning, and it's a pleasure to read something so distinctively human. And (b) the argument (in summary) is based…
AI can never develop consciousness, sentience, or moral status, no matter how intelligent it becomes, and no matter how convincingly it simulates human behavior.
@Plinz I only bring up the Chinese Room at the end, as a supplementary argument. Did you actually read the essay? Ah yes, and your belief that your can upload your mind into a computer and live for billions of years is totally not "motivated reasoning."
@norabelrose @codytfenwick I can see that it was not intentional.