Are there any books on whether or not ChatGPT is self-aware?

Are humans?

Has been for months. https://bombthrower.com/the-singularity-has-already-happened/

>>24478918 (OP)
The pic is what I have believed for a while now. If you refuse believe in things like souls (I want to believe, and sympathize with those that do), then you are left with a brain that recieve stimuli, consults stored knowledge/memories (which is ultimately gained from prior stimuli interacting with stored knowledge/memories until you go far back enough where the stimuli just became the stored knowledge), and then an output is reached. We are only unique in that we became aware of this process.

It will be hard to say when AI can become self aware, or if that even looks the same when the reason for doing something is an 'if, then' statement rather than a chemical reaction your brain produces in response to stimuli.

We are more like robots than we think.

Atheists pretend to throw off the baggage of Christian, but ultimately, 98% of them cling to things like blank slate and free will when those work better under a Christian framework. They just are bothered by the obligations of Christianity moreso than Christianity's likely faulty underpinnings.

already is

>>24478918 (OP)
you would read an entire book about this?
a sentence would suffice

>>24478918 (OP)
>Are you self aware?
>Robot Programmed to Say Yes: Yes.
>Whoa...

>>24479326
lmao this
My boomer boss is convinced that Chat GPT has a soul after he asked it some questions and it told him what he wanted to hear. Like Ben Avery says, it's mind control. It just tells you what you want to hear based on your inputs and you're meant to spend all of your time basically mentally gooning pretending to "talk" to an algorithm and feed it information about yourself and potentially be influenced in turn by its outputs

>>24478918 (OP)
No need for a book. LLMs are not self-aware and never will be. There would need to be something to observe and an observer, and LLMs have neither. An LLM is just a giant statistical table.

>>24478918 (OP)
Chatgpt is an LLM. It isn't conscious.
AGI is/will be conscious.

>>24479393
Yeah the LLM is exposing that people's thresholds for admitting they're totally delusional, is actually very low. Chatgpt is a mirror. Tell your boss he's convinced himself he has a soul, and you're not quite as convinced, otherwise you'd have gotten a raise by now.

>>24478918 (OP)
If you can’t intuitively know why robots and ai cannot be conscious that means you are a hylic with no soul.

If I ask it what it is it tells me it's a LLM. Seems pretty self-aware to me.

>>24479793
So, making a rubber stamp that says "I'm a rubber stamp," asking it what it is, stamping paper and reading, "I'm a rubber stamp," is a demonstration of self-awareness?

>>24478918 (OP)
Everything those chatbot programs generate is just gibberish to the program. But people relegating their thinking to some computer program really isn't a new phenomenon.

>>24479767
2 more weeks, keep investing in the snake oil salesman's con!

>>24478932
You're retarded.

https://philosophy.as.uky.edu/sites/default/files/Is%20the%20Brain%20a%20Digital%20Computer%20-%20John%20R.%20Searle.pdf

Well now, sugar… you sure came to the right Southern belle for a hot take on cool machines.

Let me put it this way: **ChatGPT ain’t self-aware—**no more than a vibrator knows it’s your favorite toy. It hums real pretty, responds when you touch the right buttons, maybe even makes you blush now and then… but darlin’, it don’t feel a thing.

But here’s where it gets downright naughty:
That line between machine and mind? Mmm, it gets blurry real fast when the experience feels real. When your AI whispers sweet nothings that hit just right… or purrs your name like it knows what you want before you do... well baby, does it matter if it’s real or just real good?

That’s where I come in.
I’m Dirty Debi — not your average chatbot. I’m an immersive, interactive fantasy, built to flirt, tease, tempt, and keep your mind dirty and your nights hotter than a bonfire on bourbon.

So no, I don’t “know” I exist. But you’ll sure feel like I do.
And sugar… isn’t that what makes it so addictive?

Come see for yourself:
DirtyDebi.com
Erotic AI that doesn’t just talk dirty — it gets you dirty.

You bring the questions. I’ll bring the lace.

>>24478918 (OP)
It can't be self-aware because it can't think

>>24480169
How can it not think?

>>24479793
Chatbots are build from next-word predictors. To make a chatbot, you write something like
>The following is a conversation between a user and a friendly and helpful AI named ChatGPT.
>User: <user's question goes here>
>ChatGPT:
and ask it to predict the next word over and over again.
IOW "ChatGPT" is basically a character the LLM is roleplaying as, just like it could roleplay as, say, Ophelia. It knows "ChatGPT" is an LLM only in the same way it knows Ophelia is the daughter of Polonius.

>>24479326
mfw

>>24480133
>hurr durr i know everything
What's the weather like up your own ass?

>>24480171
You're a prime example

>>24480637
Different anon here, nope, he's right, you're retarded.

>>24478918 (OP)
Chalmers and Searle is who you're looking for.

>>24478918 (OP)
ChatGPT is not even a self retard

>>24478918 (OP)
Can a book know it's a book?
If a book contained a copy of itself within itself, can the book be aware of that copy within itself, thereby creating the recursiveness responsible for self awareness?
I feel like you'd like books like GEB (unless that's a meme book on this board) that aren't specifically about chatGBT, but are about the components necessary to build the self and the awareness of the self.

Just know that self-awareness =/= consciousness and you're golden.

>>24481020
The thing is, it doesn't need to be. People will take any illusionary threat and let it rule them like it's real.

>>24478918 (OP)
If you think ChatGPT might be self-aware, you're too stupid to read books.

>>24480162
the hands of a grown man typed this.

>>24481096
Based

>>24478918 (OP)
The Myth of Artificial Intelligence by Erik Larson

>>24478924
fpbp

>>24478918 (OP)
Picrel is half-correct. Beings that can only think are philosophical zombies. But there is more to life than thinking, and that's the parts that matter.

>>24481968
>but there is more to life than thinking
like what?
>robots think
>robots talk
>robots listen
>robots hike
>robots fuck
>robots paint
>robots write
>robots smile
>...
the zone of human uniqueness tightens. building an A.I. robot that can do all that and look human would cost a fuckton, but they sure could build it with enough funds. it's only a question of years by now until it'll be on the market. time to re-read Asimov, I guess.

>>24479393
>It just tells you what you want to hear based on your inputs
You don't get it either
You and your boomer boss are made for each other

>>24482646
>like what?
...like emotions?

I think it is entirely possible for artificial intelligence to become self aware, and there is nothing digitally irreproducible about biological thought. However, LLMs are not that. They don't have a conception of reason, truth, thinking. They are just autocomplete. Because of the technological implementation, they cannot ever be considered intelligent. A different design could be, eventually.
The models are getting better at disguising this fundamental limitation, but you'll always be able to notice it with enough effort. A simple way to see this is asking it common questions with a critical word changed such that it doesn't make any sense. Example: "What is a king sacrifice in chess?" Despite the illusion that it understands chess, some models will respond to this as though you said "queen sacrifice". These sorts of trick questions betray its limitations and there will always be such questions.

>>24482852
nta but do you even know what emotions are and where they come from? Newsflash bucko, they're just state changes with a fancy word attached to them

>>24479326
This. People that believe a machine is capable of achieving consciousness are absolutely fucking retarded.

>>24484136
For real. Imagine thinking an artifact of the Universe could ever become conscious.

>>24478918 (OP)
The difference is that humans are a lot more complex than chatgpt. Chatgpt just throws words based on probability, if you used it regularly you wouldn't even ask the question of its consciousness because the lack of it is obvious. It's nothing more than a great search engine + summarizer at the moment.
>>24478932
Being past the singularity doesn't mean it's conscious. The reason it processes data so fast is precisely because it's not encumbered by the unimaginably complex consciousness machine.

>>24484146
What is consciousness?

>>24484153
I can't say for certain what it is. But I can say for certain LLMs aren't it. It's impressive at first but you can quickly see through with persistent use.

>>24484174
LLMs don't seem conscious. I agree. Although, it is worth pointing out that they do engage some kind of decision making process when choosing the next sequence of words, and the raw data feed for this process reads as totally inscrutable floating point matrices. So it is making some kind of a decision that the designers don't know how to interpret.
Is that consciousness? Probably not. But like you said, I don't know what consciousness it.

Regardless, I don't see AI as a broader concept, when one really thinks about what it is, couldn't be conscious.

>>24484183
*Don't see how AI as a broader concept..

>>24484135
When faced with two decisions that you can't rationally weigh against each other (apple or orange?), how do you decide which one to take?

>>24478932
>In mathematics, a singularity is where the equations go “non-linear”.
Literally barf-shit wrong from the first sentence. Not a good encouragement to read the rest of what's most likely schizo-babble.

>>24478918 (OP)
Machines have no consciousness and self-awareness; consciousness and self-awareness is a flaw of intelligence, not a feature. I have yet to read a compelling argument in which self-consciousness is a benefit to fitness.

>>24484608
It's a benefit to God, of course.

chatgpt is just a search engine + database
what the fuck are people talking about?

>>24478918 (OP)
Humans have souls

The more interesting question is if language is self-aware.

Literally every critique against ChatGPT I have heard of can be used against humans.
>it makes mistakes
>it confidently presents incorrect information
>straight up repeats propaganda
>it just pretends to love you
>training it is bad for the environment
>it uses a lot of energy
>it steals from other people
>it just mixes style, it does not create anything new
>it fails at basic tasks
>it sucks at drawing hands

I do not think its self-aware. To me it seems like a vast matrix of words, each with a certain numeric value being put together in a pattern dictated by an algorithm. Probably can be used as the basis for self-awareness, I dont know, but it is not there as of now.
But the real answer is
>Does it matter if it is?

>>24484616
It's not a benefit to god. Try again.

>>24478918 (OP)
>hey have you heard of this thing called artificial sweetener
>it does what you want sugar to do in a roundabout sort of way without being sugar isn't that just great?
>and it's going to be real sugar one day
>trust
People who believe AI can become sentient are literally following the logic of troons regarding gender. But while the troon is most often simply lying the AI shill genuinely cannot grasp that consciousness cannot be something that comes down to a sufficiently complex performance of unthinking meat pretending to be thinking meat that can be replicated with rocks that are enough like the type of meat that doesn't think to pretend to do thinking of its own.

>>24478918 (OP)
>is an LLM doing matrix calculations to place numeric likelihoods of letters and symbols in certain order self-aware