Jump to content

Talk:Artificial consciousness

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Artificial consciousness. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:34, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Artificial consciousness. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:37, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"Self-simulation"

[edit]

Hi, "self-simulation" is a concept and methode advocated by Hod Lipson as pre-stage to self-awareness of robots.[1]

Now I do not know where that could fit, if it is even this article or worth an own article? Nsae Comp (talk) 16:37, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Nsae Comp: I started writing a description of this "self-modeling" concept, but it's far from complete. Jarble (talk) 04:09, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ John Pavlus (2019-07-09). "Curious About Consciousness? Ask the Self-Aware Machines". Quanta Magazine. Retrieved 2019-10-21.

Intriguing work re. MC

[edit]

Hi, if anyone hasn't seen this it appears that Orch-OR may indeed be correct and verifiable. Its actually a very accurate model from certain points of view, such as the action of xenon and other anaesthetics on consciousness. Its entirely possible that the technology to make a conscious machine already exists but what is lacking is the specific program and model to run in limited hardware. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.81.156.140 (talk) 08:15, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Difficult to understand for a non-technical audience

[edit]

This article feels like it is written for a technical audience, it's really hard to understand for newcomers. I understand the endeavor to be technically accurate, and maybe it's also a complicated subject in itself. For example, the definition "Define that which would have to be synthesized were consciousness to be found in an engineered artifact" feels very convoluted to me, and I didn't understand the paragraph on the Computational Foundation argument. Alenoach (talk) 22:56, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Integrated information theory

[edit]

I think the integrated information theory is a major aspect of the topic, and should be discussed in the article. Alenoach (talk) 07:00, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps also Attention schema theory and Global workspace theory. Alenoach (talk) 10:12, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

May need to be removed

[edit]

I don't feel confident removing a lot of content without discussion, but in my opinion, the section "Implementation proposals" still contains old and non-essential content that has historical value but that isn't so useful for readers. For example the part on "Intelligent Distribution Agent". Perhaps some of it can be moved to other articles like Cognitive architecture. Alenoach (talk) 22:24, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Chatbots like ChatGPT or Bard have been trained to say they are not conscious?

[edit]

The statement, "many chatbots like ChatGPT or Bard have been trained to say they are not conscious." is referenced to this article:

https://www.noemamag.com/artificial-general-intelligence-is-already-here/

But that article provides no evidence to support this statement. It merely states the same - "ChatGPT and Bard are both trained to respond that they are not conscious."

Therefore I removed the following statement and it's reference:

Additionally, many chatbots like ChatGPT or Bard have been trained to say they are not conscious.[1]

  1. ^ Agüera y Arcas, Blaise; Norvig, Peter (October 10, 2023). "Artificial General Intelligence Is Already Here". Noema.

Tyler keys (talk) 12:49, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's not something that companies openly declare. But one of the two authors (Blaise Agüera y Arcas) is well-placed to make a statement about Bard, since he works at Google. Asking to ChatGPT if it is conscious returns an unusually short and categorical negative response. But indeed, the authors don't work at OpenAI and may not have insider knowledge about how ChatGPT was trained. I replaced the sentence with "Additionally, some chatbots have been trained to say they are not conscious." Let me know if it's still not ok. Alenoach (talk) 01:11, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks - I neglected to take note of the author's credentials. Tyler keys (talk) 06:33, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No problem, it's good that you verify the sources. Alenoach (talk) 17:56, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]