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]

This means, what has to be made, to have a computer software (for example), that is conscious. It is that the more we know what has to be made for that, and then make it, the closer we come to have such software. This is what the research is about. We don't necessarily get anything conscious, but we can go closer.
It is not necessarily about computer software, may be something else engineered. I hope that this explains what Igor Aleksander wanted to say. His definition is maybe not easy to understand, but it defines what is necessary to be defined, and there are really not much better ones. Unless one goes to a greedy simplification, omitting something essential, that is. Tkorrovi (talk) 23:56, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I very much want to write such easier and better to understand explanations, as that above. But because of using the Wikipedia rules to the extreme, at some times if you didn't write it directly from a peer-reviewed paper, then it was deleted. And these texts are always technical, almost never easy to understand for most people. This is also one reason why i wanted a link to the Everything2 wiki about the topic, where the rules are less restrictive, and it is possible to write such explanations there. Yes there also is a link to my software project, some people like it, and i cannot change that. If some say that this taints everything, that's an easy way to prevent all good efforts. My aim has always been to understand these things, and help people to understand, this is also why i, almost alone, once a long time ago started this article. That i also wrote some software for research purposes for the same reason, i'm so sorry for the sin, though i don't really understand why it is considered to be so great sin. Tkorrovi (talk) 10:34, 27 April 2025 (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]

Maybe it is true about something particular. But in general, you say "Old and non-essential content that has historical value but that isn't so useful for readers". Would you please explain why is old necessarily bad? Is true only that which is said at any particular time? One old thing that you seem to accept, is the Daniel Dennett's multiple drafts model, this may just happen to remain true, in spite of being old. Tkorrovi (talk) 09:58, 29 April 2025 (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]
Here is a copy of the reply I made on my talk page to explain why I removed content:
I believed that edit wouldn't be particularly controversial. The list of the types of external links that should generally be avoided (WP:LINKSTOAVOID) is quite extensive, and includes "Blogs, personal web pages, and most fansites (negative ones included), except those written by a recognized authority" and "Any site that does not provide a unique resource beyond what the article would contain if it became a featured article."
There is also the fact that today, there are many more online articles on the topic than 10 or 20 years ago. Nowadays, even The New York Times sometimes makes articles specifically on artificial consciousness. Which reduces the reasons for singling out these old sources in particular.
Here are more details for why I removed each link:
- Artefactual consciousness depiction by Professor Igor Aleksander: old presentation from Igor Aleksander that isn't so easy to make sense of without the accompanying speech.
- FOCS 2009: Manuel Blum – Can (Theoretical Computer) Science come to grips with Consciousness?: mentions four abstracts of conference articles, but only one is about artificial consciousness, and it doesn't directly enable to read the article.
- www.Conscious-Robots.com, Machine Consciousness and Conscious Robots Portal: looks like a personal blog (perhaps it's great, but I removed it because of WP:NOBLOGS).
I may agree with that one, it's not so important site, though can as well be there. --Tkorrovi (talk) 13:17, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Artificial consciousness, artificial consciousness article in everything2: dead link, and if you search it on web archive, it looks like a self-published post.
It is not a dead link, works for me, there may be some issues with too much traffic sometimes in Everything2. I don't know what you see and what seems to you in the web archive. Everything2 is a collective effort like Wikipedia, there are contributions by different people. But even more so, there are admins who decide what is inappropriate, what is submitted there is accepted, and furthermore has to have more people supporting it, than are against. This is more strict than in Wikipedia, but also some things are allowed, like original research, though only when the admins approve it and users support it. Also different from Wikipedia, the articles by the editors can only be edited by these editors themselves, not by other editors. The main reason why i consider that there should be reference to Everything2, are some less strict rules, that for example enable to explain that written in the papers, while by extensively applying Wikipedia rules, such explanations can just be deleted, and the content remains extremely technical, copied from the peer-reviewed articles, that is often too difficult to understand by the most users. There was no reason at all for removing it. --Tkorrovi (talk) 13:17, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There are no workarounds here. If Wikipedia doesn't permit content that doesn't mean you just upload to some other user generated site and link to it there. MrOllie (talk) 13:37, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The link is not to my project, the link is to the artificial consciousness topic in Everything2. This is allowed, and if my project is also mentioned and accepted there under this topic, this doesn't mean that it is not allowed to refer to the whole topic because of that from Wikipedia. This is absurd. Tkorrovi (talk) 14:02, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You keep saying that is 'allowed', but you are wrong. MrOllie (talk) 14:12, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
What in Wikipedia forbids a link to a topic in another wiki? Nothing, so no, i'm not wrong. By WP:EL what can be included in the external links is "information that could not be added to the article for reasons such as copyright or amount of detail, or other meaningful, relevant content that is not suitable for inclusion in an article for reasons unrelated to its accuracy", and i explained the relevance, explanations making it easier to understand by people, can be added to Everything2, that cannot be added to Wikipedia because of strict rules. This is additional information that may help, not primary information, external links are not for primary information. Tkorrovi (talk) 14:34, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This has already been explained above. WP:EL is very clear about not linking to this user generated stuff. And trying to force in a link to a user generated post elsewhere that promotes your software is doubly inappropriate. MrOllie (talk) 14:38, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It is not "user generated stuff" as you call it, but an organized wiki, where edits are moderated and reviewed. And WP:EL does not forbid that, there is nothing "clear" there that says it. Tkorrovi (talk) 14:50, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Generality in Artificial Intelligence, Generality in Artificial Intelligence by John McCarthy.: primarily about AGI (intelligence rather than consciousness). And it is quite outdated, because AI has progressed a lot since 1971.
- Multiple drafts model, Daniel Dennett's multiple drafts model.: moved that remaining link as an inline reference.
Alenoach (talk) 11:49, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It is absolutely wrong to remove old historical sources because they are old. And that it is sometimes written about them elsewhere, does not mean that it must not be written in Wikipedia, to the contrary, the more they must be in Wikipedia, Wikipedia is to give people the general knowledge, it's not a mere addition to other material. That's a completely wrong logic. There was no reason to remove these links. Tkorrovi (talk) 12:59, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like two against one, but in Wikipedia you never know. May be the same person, or the same interest group, this is just what Wikipedia is. --Tkorrovi (talk) 01:12, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Do not baselessly accuse others of being the 'same person'. MrOllie (talk) 01:53, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't accuse, i said i don't know. Tkorrovi (talk) 02:24, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Would anyone voice against this unreasonable removal of content? Important historical links were removed, and the rest can also be there, if it doesn't take much space, this is after all the content. Wikipedia is not just about what some people want it to be, Wikipedia must include multiple points of view. And in this case there was no valid reason for removing the content, neither is there a consensus of many people, so the content must be restored. Arbitrarily removing content means WP:OWN by one, maybe two people, with common interests. Wanting some valid content not to be removed, is not, no one is against editing it, but deleting important content is destructive. But ok, i want others to agree, after all it's a common effort, by no means do i want to dictate anything, but also any other person or small group should not dictate. --Tkorrovi (talk) 09:59, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

neither is there a consensus of many people, so the content must be restored. - That is the opposite of how Wikipedia editing works. Read WP:ONUS. MrOllie (talk) 13:22, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You turn it to the opposite, WP:ONUS talks about consensus for removing content, Read from there "consensus may determine that certain information does not improve an article...", means consensus is necessary for removing something from the article. it cannot be said that there is such consensus here. It doesn't require consensus for restoring when there was no consensus for removing. But as Wikipedia is a collective effort, then yes it needs more than one person involved. I don't dictate anything, but neither should anyone else dictate what must be deleted. Tkorrovi (talk) 14:15, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No, that is the opposite of what the whole passage says. Your quotation cuts off just before the relevant part, which I will quote here: The responsibility for achieving consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content. MrOllie (talk) 14:20, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That's about a content disputed by consensus, as i said this consensus is not likely here. What i see here is only two people talking, this is not enough to justify removing content. Solving this issue should though be a common effort, as i said. Tkorrovi (talk) 14:44, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Artificial_consciousness&oldid=1288266469"