alt Hacker NewsIt has been generally agreed since at least Plato that it’s up to people making a positive assertion to present evidence, not up to skeptics to prove it’s not possible. N.B. Russell’s Teapot Analogy.
You have to prove it is/can be conscious, not the other way around.
Replies
I don’t agree.
The author is trying to positively assert that it’s impossible that AIs have consciousness.
I think you’d be hard pressed to find even the most ardent of AI proponents claiming AIs are _definitely_ conscious. They are almost always claiming something weaker, which is that it is possible.
The original article said that not having a consciousness makes the AI model uncapable of intelligent judgment, so in this case it's fair to ask those who are asserting such connection to prove their point.
It's the opposite isn't it? You assume consciousness in other things which may have it. Higher order animals, other humans etc.
Imagine if we actually demanded that you prove your consciousness before we believe you.
I understand this but what happens when you apply this to humans? Can you prove humans are conscious?
We don’t have a precise enough definition to do either.