> In this (and other comments by you I think?) you've implied the onus is on the AGI sceptics to prove to you that the LLM is not sentient (or whatever word you want to describe motive force, intent, consciousness, etc that we associate with human intelligence). This is an unreasonable request - it is on you to show that it is so.

And yet, humans are assumed so without having to show it.

Suppose a computer programmed for scientific exploration came to earth that was only following a program, did not consider itself sentient or have a consciousness, but met humans who claimed they did, and they were then tasked with providing an argument that could convince this computer? How could they do so?

The computer would always argue that they are simply claiming to be due to evolution as it's advantages as it arouses sympathy, but that in reality they are soulless neural networks whose behavior simply evolved from selective pressure. They could never actually offer a compelling argument nor explain how the neural network inside of their cranium could ever produce self-awareness.

So you're saying that LLMs are sentient because we can't prove that anything or anyone is sentient?

No, not at all. I'm purely saying that the argument that they are different from humans is not necessarily substantiated.

There’s a misunderstanding here—

I’m not claiming LLMs are sentient. I’m not claiming they are even similar.

What I am pushing back against is the confidence with which people so blatantly claim we are dissimilar.

It’s an important distinction, and I’ve yet to see solid evidence to suggest it’s a point we shouldn’t even explore.

What I see so often is comments stating things like, “an LLM is just pattern matching” or “it’s a prediction machine”.

And I’m not arguing that’s not true; what I’m arguing is how can anyone say a human is inherently different ?

I admit that I’m taken with these latest advancements. It’s why yes, you see my tech-bro crazy-person comments in these threads a lot! But I’m genuinely fascinated by this stuff.

I have had a huge interest in the human mind for a decade. I’ve read the works of folks like Anil Seth and others who work in cognitive and computational science, and I’m increasingly intrigued by the things we might learn about our own selves via these technological advancements.

Again, I’m not claiming sentience for an LLM, or anything that says “we are the same as an LLM.” I’m simply trying to argue that our own minds are a black box, as are how an LLM arrives at an output; it’s the confidence of folks to claim they know what’s inside either that I’m pushing back against.

Thanks for the reply; I also saw your other reply to a similar comment after I'd posted mine and your position seems more reasonable than I first understood it.