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]

"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]
[edit]

Several external links were recently removed. They don't agree with WP:NOT or WP:EL, and in many cases were out of date. One in particular ('everything2') is just a couple of user generated posts, which is clearly inappropriate. None of these should be restored without demonstrated consensus on this talk page, see WP:ONUS. MrOllie (talk) 23:18, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The following external links were removed, i have to write them here, otherwise there can be no discussion and no consensus.
== External links ==
The first reason said was that these are "outdated and not relevant", but most of them are theoretically important today, and things like this don't go out of date. The next reason was WP:NOT that forbids a list of links that is only listing, contextual descriptions were added, so this reason is no longer valid. These links contain further research that is accurate and on-topic, so WP:EL does not apply. And in spite of that, now the reason is that having that content now requires consensus. That is not Wikipedia policy, but all i could do was to copy the removed content here, hoping now anyone voicing to restore it. Thank you for your attention. Tkorrovi (talk) 23:31, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
contextual descriptions were added - That is completely irrelevant. Changing the format slightly does not mean that policy somehow no longer applies.
I'll also note that edit warring to try to force in an external link to a user generated posting you've made on another website is deeply inappropriate. MrOllie (talk) 23:42, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't agree, adding descriptions is not changing format, these are not mere links any more. "Force in an external link to a user generated posting you've made on another website" -- This is not what i did, none of these links are to my posting. Tkorrovi (talk) 23:51, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I started this article, made it from nothing to serious article very long time ago, i started it alone with a lot of opposition. I think i deserve a bit of respect. Tkorrovi (talk) 00:01, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
none of these links are to my posting <--- I simply do not believe that. But even giving the benefit of the doubt, the posting includes a link to software you've written (as you've already stated elsewhere on Wikipedia). That's a clear problem. Your previous work on this article does not mean you own it (WP:OWN) and does not entitle you to force in links or content. MrOllie (talk) 00:06, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Please stop talking about the reasons that you guess but that are not true. Link to another Wiki with the same topic is just that, link to another Wiki where people can also read about this topic. Whatever was ever written elsewhere in the Wikipedia has nothing whatsoever to do with that. Please stop bothering with it. Furthermore, even if what you guess is correct, which is not, this breaks no rules and i'm sorry to say it but, no reason to tell it other than being against me. Tkorrovi (talk) 00:28, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Linking to another Wiki that hosts content and links about a project of yours that has been deleted from Wikipedia is not just a 'Link to another Wiki'. It is borderline spam, and yes, it is absolutely a violation of Wikipedia's policies. MrOllie (talk) 00:35, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Whatever you say by your guess and your interpretation, this doesn't make it true, there is no "borderline spam" or any other sin from the list that may be many times longer than list of sins in the bible. Please stop it, and please stop bothering me, i want peace, i don't want to be continuously bothered, everyone should understand this. Thank you. Tkorrovi (talk) 00:45, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Stop targeting me please, you have no right to do this. And i'm for humanity, that's all i am and all i do, no matter how bad it may sound. Tkorrovi (talk) 01:00, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Everyone has a right to discuss on Wikipedia article talk pages. Commenting on this public article talk page is not 'bothering' you, and I completely reject any suggestion that I should stop posting here. MrOllie (talk) 01:28, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Did i talk about you talking on the talk page, or did i talk about what you talk? I never said that you should stop posting here, now you start to put words into my mouth. I said please stop bothering me, you don't stop. Tkorrovi (talk) 01:39, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You don't get to control what I say, so stop trying to order me around. MrOllie (talk) 11:49, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Please stop. I don't want to control you. Tkorrovi (talk) 12:09, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You are welcome to drop this at any point, but you make that decision for yourself, not for me. MrOllie (talk) 12:29, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you if you stop it. Tkorrovi (talk) 12:41, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Artificial_consciousness&oldid=1287463937"