Artificial-intelligence systems such as large language models (LLMs) can exhibit behaviour that seems strikingly intelligent. This has led many people, including some experts, to wonder whether these systems could have some form of consciousness — the capacity for subjective experience. However, we think that existing AI systems are not conscious, and that, along current trajectories of development, they are not likely to become conscious. Greater clarity about whether AI could become consciousness will be crucial as society grapples with the challenges posed by this increasingly powerful technology.
You are just delusional, literally hallucinating things I never wrote. Nowhere in anything I wrote did I claim that I am rejecting it as meaningless “because its individual words don’t yield the intended meaning under their preferred literal interpretation.”. I never said that, I never implied that, I never gave the impression of implying that, and I never had the air of the impression of implying that.
You are literally just hallucinating things never written.
Calling me “delusional” doesn’t erase what you wrote. Let’s review the evidence you’re so determined to ignore.
You declared the expression meaningless, then dissected its constituent words to argue that its literal interpretation makes no sense. That’s a characterization of your reasoning, not a fabricated quotation. I never claimed it was your only objection.
In that very same comment, you wrote:
I identified the inconsistency between your appeal to social usage and your literal dissection of an established expression. You haven’t explained that inconsistency, let alone resolved it.
Instead, after being presented with direct quotations, you’ve resorted to categorical denials and personal insults. Repeating that an interpretation was “hallucinated” doesn’t demonstrate that it’s false. You need to show where the inference fails. You’ve done nothing of the sort.
If you can’t distinguish between quoting someone’s words and critically examining their implications, you have no business lecturing anyone about language or reasoning.
I’ve provided the evidence twice. I’m not wasting a third explanation on someone whose entire rebuttal amounts to “I never said that” and “you’re delusional.” Get your shit together.
Yes, so I analyzed both its social use, and its literal word meaning, and found no meaning in either… so I concluded it has no meaning.
That doesn’t establish your claim that I conclude it has no meaning only because the literal definitions of the words have no meaning. You just hallucinated something that never happened and was never said.
Again, a complete hallucination of something I objectively did not say. You are just inventing idiotic straw men argument and doubling and tripling-down on them.
You laughably say I claim X, then quote me literally saying ¬X, and then claim I’m “contradicting” myself, when your delusional ass invented that I said X to begin with!
Because you’re a subhuman bug who cannot have a meaningful conversation and just wants to deflect to idiotic hallucinations.
Now, you want to say I need to prove I didn’t say X! What a laughable shift of the burden of proof! How on earth do I prove I never wrote something? Just copy/paste everything I have ever typed in my entire life into one giant document? How does that even work?
If you want to claim I said something, you need to show evidence that I said it.
Ah yes, you cannot quote me saying X, but you can “critically examine” my words to derive that I must’ve been secretly thinking X despite never having written it… right.
You have never provided a shred of evidence.
Your claim is X: that I claimed that the phrase has no meaning only because its literal definition has no meaning.
You quote me saying two things:
You then, after quoting me saying Y and ¬X, claim I’m “contradicting” myself because your “critical examination” allows you to read my mind and conclude I intended to write X!
You’re just a fucking idiot, and I cannot believe I have allowed such a monkey to waste this much of time to begin with.
My previous reply explicitly said:
You quote the opening of that same paragraph, omit that clarification, then repeatedly insist I claimed “only.” You’re arguing against a position I expressly disavowed while lecturing me about straw men. Read the sentence you skipped.
One correction: examining both literal meaning and social usage isn’t inherently contradictory. I overstated and I retract it. That does not turn “part of your argument” into “your only argument.”
Nor did I demand your entire writing history. I asked you to address the specific passages already quoted. Your objection about proving you’ve never written something anywhere answers a demand nobody made.
As for calling me a “subhuman bug”: that’s just rude, not an argument. It doesn’t make the omitted sentence disappear. I’ve corrected my overstatement. You can start by correcting the position you’ve attributed to me.