Mediaboss Marketing

There has been shock around the world at the rapid rate of progress with ChatGPT and other artificial intelligence created with whats known as large language models (LLMs). These systems can produce text that seems to display thought, understanding and even creativity.

But can these systems really think and understand? This is not a question that can be answered through technological advance, but careful philosophical analysis and argument tells us the answer is no. And without working through these philosophical issues, we will never fully comprehend the dangers and benefits of the AI revolution.

In 1950, the father of modern computing, Alan Turing, published a paper which laid out a way of determining whether a computer thinks. This is now called the Turing test. Turing imagined a human being engaged in conversation with two interlocutors hidden from view: one another human being, the other a computer. The game is to work out which is which.

If a computer can fool 70% of judges in a five-minute conversation into thinking its a person, the computer passes the test. Would passing the Turing test something which now seems imminent show that an AI has achieved thought and understanding?

Turing dismissed this question as hopelessly vague, and replaced it with a pragmatic definition of thought, whereby to think just means passing the test.

Turing was wrong, however, when he said the only clear notion of understanding is the purely behavioural one of passing his test. Although this way of thinking now dominates cognitive science, there is also a clear, everyday notion of understanding thats tied to consciousness. To understand in this sense is to consciously grasp some truth about reality.

In 1997, the Deep Blue AI beat chess grandmaster Garry Kasparov. On a purely behavioural conception of understanding, Deep Blue had knowledge of chess strategy that surpasses any human being. But it was not conscious: it didnt have any feelings or experiences.

Humans consciously understand the rules of chess and the rationale of a strategy. Deep Blue, in contrast, was an unfeeling mechanism that had been trained to perform well at the game. Likewise, ChatGPT is an unfeeling mechanism that has been trained on huge amounts of human-made data to generate content that seems like it was written by a person.

It doesnt consciously understand the meaning of the words its spitting out. If thought means the act of conscious reflection, then ChatGPT has no thoughts about anything.

How can I be so sure that ChatGPT isnt conscious? In the 1990s, neuroscientist Christof Koch bet philosopher David Chalmers a case of fine wine that scientists would have entirely pinned down the neural correlates of consciousness in 25 years.

By this, he meant they would have identified the forms of brain activity necessary and sufficient for conscious experience. Its about time Koch paid up, as there is zero consensus that this has happened.

This is because consciousness cant be observed by looking inside your head. In their attempts to find a connection between brain activity and experience, neuroscientists must rely on their subjects testimony, or on external markers of consciousness. But there are multiple ways of interpreting the data.

Some scientists believe there is a close connection between consciousness and reflective cognition the brains ability to access and use information to make decisions. This leads them to think that the brains prefrontal cortex where the high-level processes of acquiring knowledge take place is essentially involved in all conscious experience. Others deny this, arguing instead that it happens in whichever local brain region that the relevant sensory processing takes place.

Scientists have good understanding of the brains basic chemistry. We have also made progress in understanding the high-level functions of various bits of the brain. But we are almost clueless about the bit in-between: how the high-level functioning of the brain is realised at the cellular level.

People get very excited about the potential of scans to reveal the workings of the brain. But fMRI (functional magnetic resonance imaging) has a very low resolution: every pixel on a brain scan corresponds to 5.5 million neurons, which means theres a limit to how much detail these scans are able to show.

I believe progress on consciousness will come when we understand better how the brain works.

As I argue in my forthcoming book Why? The Purpose of the Universe, consciousness must have evolved because it made a behavioural difference. Systems with consciousness must behave differently, and hence survive better, than systems without consciousness.

If all behaviour was determined by underlying chemistry and physics, natural selection would have no motivation for making organisms conscious; we would have evolved as unfeeling survival mechanisms.

My bet, then, is that as we learn more about the brains detailed workings, we will precisely identify which areas of the brain embody consciousness. This is because those regions will exhibit behaviour that cant be explained by currently known chemistry and physics. Already, some neuroscientists are seeking potential new explanations for consciousness to supplement the basic equations of physics.

While the processing of LLMs is now too complex for us to fully understand, we know that it could in principle be predicted from known physics. On this basis, we can confidently assert that ChatGPT is not conscious.

There are many dangers posed by AI, and I fully support the recent call by tens of thousands of people, including tech leaders Steve Wozniak and Elon Musk, to pause development to address safety concerns. The potential for fraud, for example, is immense. However, the argument that near-term descendants of current AI systems will be super-intelligent, and hence a major threat to humanity, is premature.

This doesnt mean current AI systems arent dangerous. But we cant correctly assess a threat unless we accurately categorise it. LLMs arent intelligent. They are systems trained to give the outward appearance of human intelligence. Scary, but not that scary.

If so, youll be interested in our free daily newsletter. Its filled with the insights of academic experts, written so that everyone can understand whats going on in the world. With the latest scientific discoveries, thoughtful analysis on political issues and research-based life tips, each email is filled with articles that will inform you and often intrigue you.

Get our newsletters

Editor and General Manager

Get news thats free, independent and based on evidence.

Get newsletter

Editor

Find peace of mind, and the facts, with experts. Add evidence-based articles to your news digest. No uninformed commentariat. Just experts. 90,000 of them have written for us. They trust us. Give it a go.

Get our newsletter

If you found the article you just read to be insightful, youll be interested in our free daily newsletter. Its filled with the insights of academic experts, written so that everyone can understand whats going on in the world. Each newsletter has articles that will inform and intrigue you.

Subscribe now

CEO | Editor-in-Chief

It helps you go deeper into key political issues and also introduces you to the diversity of research coming out of the continent. It's not about breaking news. It's not about unfounded opinions. The Europe newsletter is evidence-based expertise from European scholars, presented by myself in France, and two of my colleagues in Spain and the UK.

Get our newsletter

Head of English section, France edition

The rest is here:

ChatGPT cant think consciousness is something entirely different to today's AI - The Conversation