Nope, every time an LLM screws up in the slightest I’m giving it hell for being an idiot savant.
It seems likely that the LLMs have been trained on enough human conversations to mimic how people become less helpful when the conversation turns hostile.
So no moral judgment if you get enjoyment from it, but it probably isn't going to improve from the interaction.
And there is a lot known about the neural correlates of consciousness, what's happening in the brain during events people will then report as being aware of, and how that differs from events they won't report having been aware of.
We don't have a solid or consensus theory about consciousness, but the idea that we've just made no progress is untrue. Some books I recommend are Being You by Anil Seth from 2021 or Consciousness and the Brain by Stanislas Dehaene from 2014z
E.g. if we were in a simulation, you'd expect any NPCs in said simulation to be designed to act exactly as if they were even if they were not.
We take it on faith because it's feels right and makes sense, not because we know.
> And there is a lot known about the neural correlates of consciousness, what's happening in the brain during events people will then report as being aware of, and how that differs from events they won't report having been aware of.
This tells us which events people report having been aware of, yes, but it doesn't tell us if that is actually true. We're accepting it as true because we have no better option.
And that's fine, as long as we're aware that when we reject the possibility of consciousness elsewhere, that our knowledge of our own self-wareness is fundamentally based on trusting self-reporting.
There's nothing wrong with that but it's not really useful in any setting where you're accepting all the things people normally accept, and then just pointing at "I think therefore I am is all I actually have to evidence for" when there's a specific thing you don't want to take on.