[lowsong]

> I think we can all agree that LLMs can mimick consciousness to the point that it is hard for most people to discern them from humans.

No, their output can mimic language patterns.

> If they aren't, you need a really good argument that shows how they differ from humans or you can take the opposite route and question the consciousness of most humans.

The burden of proof is firmly on the side of proving they are conscious.

> I currently hold the opinion that they are conscious.

There is no question, at all, that the current models are not conscious, the question is “could this path of development lead to one that is”. If you are genuinely ascribing consciousness to them, then you are seeing faces in clouds.

[curiouscube]

> No, their output can mimic language patterns.

That's true and exactly what I mean. The issue is we have no measure to delineate things that mimic conscousness from things that have consciousness. So far the beings that I know have consciousness is exactly one: Myself. I assume that others have consciousness too exactly because they mimic patterns that I, a verified conscious being, has. But I have no further proof that others aren't p-Zombies.

I just find it interesting that people say that LLMs are somehow guaranteed p-Zombies because they mimic language patterns, but mimicing language patterns is also literally how humans learn to speak.

Note that I use the term consciousness somewhat disconnected from ethics, just as a descriptor for certain qualities. I don't think LLMs have the same rights as humans or that current LLMs should have similar rights.