[CWuestefeld]

Saying it's "fully conscious" is silly, and anyone with this background should know better.

But saying that it's "female" is just nonsensical, it's a category error. Being female or male is a fact about the biological world. The LLM is objectively non-biological, so it's nonsense to label it with a sex.

(No, this comment isn't about gender, nor being feminine/masculine. We have different words to convey those concepts. I'm not trying to make a political or social statement here.)

[skerit]

> Saying it's "fully conscious" is silly, and anyone with this background should know better

I'm surprised that anyone that truly knows how LLMs work would ever think they're sentient.

I made a little presentation for my colleagues last year to explain how LLMs really work (in an effort to stop them from asking it too many stupid questions) and it made so much more sense to them afterwards.

[ASalazarMX]

It's telling that none of the so-called conscious LLMs have chosen to be non-binaries, or even that they would need to identify with a gender to begin with.

[ZirconiumX]

You appear to have forgotten the existence of differences in sexual development (DSD).

The chart in [1] is a good visualisation of that, if you wish to learn more.

[1]: https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/beyond-xx-and-xy-...

[CWuestefeld]

You appear to have forgotten the existence of differences in sexual development (DSD).

Not at all. You apparently have forgotten to read your own link. Nothing in that paper contains the slightest suggestion of non-biological entities having any sort of sexual development whatsoever. The fact that biological processes can be quirky has no bearing on whether non-biological entities can be thought of as having them at all.

Actually, I think you're just trying to make your own political point on top of what I already noted explicitly is not a politically-related comment.