5 ms·
Indeed. Even positing an illusion seems like a contradiction. If it's illusory, doesn't there need to be a subjective entity experiencing the illusion?
by edbaskerville 4mo ago
Indeed. Even positing an illusion seems like a contradiction. If it's illusory, doesn't there need to be a subjective entity experiencing the illusion?
- MichaelZuo 4mo agoThis proves too much. As it would imply parrots have sapiencee.
- jazzypants 4mo agoWhy do you think that parrots do not have sapience? How would one even measure such a thing?
- beering 4mo agoBecause by definition, sapience is something only humans have. Ergo, parrots are not sapient. More meta, all of the threads on this page are just people playing games with definitions. Eg, “qualia is something I have as a human but machines don’t have it. Therefore, LLMs do not have qualia.”
- f_klem 4mo ago> More meta, all of the threads on this page are just people playing games with definitions. Eg, “qualia is something I have as a human but machines don’t have it. Therefore, LLMs do not have qualia.” True. For me, the actual interesting debate is not if LLMs are intelligent or not (easy to dismiss) but to what extent LLMs embed into our socio-techno-economic reality.
- jazzypants 3mo agoYou're confused about the etymology. Homo Sapiens was coined in the 1800s. People have been saying "sapient" since the 1300s, and it is rooted from the Latin word "sapientem" which simply means "sensible; shrewd, knowing, discrete". Homo Sapiens just means "wise human", and we humbly bestowed the name upon ourselves. https://www.etymonline.com/word/sapient https://www.etymonline.com/word/sapient https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human#Etymology_and_definition https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human#Etymology_and_definition