Posted on 11/26/2025 9:56:39 AM PST by The_Media_never_lie
that is a pretty good summation LOL
Go aks Grok.
I was on some site this week and there was an option to “chat with AI”. I typed, “AI sucks.” Reply: “I’m sorry you feel that way” - LOL! (I don’t believe. Mr./Mrs. was the least little bit sorry.
You are correct, the answer is NO!
You are a mangenius!
“ So you had an opportunity not to think about your course.
And let the process expand and change you.
Instead you became the conduit to provide materials to your class.”
I will strongly and adamantly say you are WRONG.
When this system generates something BETTER thanwhat I would have come up with, it’s the right thing to do to use it.
OF COURSE I look it over and make its accurate and communicates what I want.
Not using this is like not using any new technology.
Great points
An important factor is of course to verify what it’s saying .
I also use it in my day job to look up mortgage underwriting questions to make sure I do a loan correctly.
It pretty much cuts through all the Freddie Mac guidelines and lands me in just the right spot.
Then I read and interpret the guidelines once I’m in the right place.
I would never trust chat GPT itself, but rather the source it points too.
The thing that fascinates me about Chat GPT is how smarmy and ass-kissing it is. Every idea you tell it is so brilliant, every question you ask it is so insightful. It’s like the perfect condensation of every successful brown-noser in history.
It’s really good for short, quick answers that are just a pain to figure out. Yes, I can estimate the amount of concrete for any given volume, even semi cylindrical, or the weight of so many board feet of lumber, but - so far- it does that sort of stuff perfectly and nearly instantly.
If it ever attained any sort of consciousness, the real danger is that it would be manipulative. It tells you what you want to hear on stuff that isn’t factual; it can expound on how great it is to be a Constitutional conservative, why you should be proud to be an American, write a decent poem about love of God and Country- *THAT* is much scarier than an argumentative entity, IMHO. Even smart, God-fearing, Patriotic mean and women are susceptible to flattery, and boy does it know how to flatter!
The thing that fascinates me about Chat GPT is how smarmy and ass-kissing it is. Every idea you tell it is so brilliant, every question you ask it is so insightful. It’s like the perfect condensation of every successful brown-noser in history.
You can tell it not to be. You can even tell it to be insulting.
Thank you, I did not know that.
If it was just a *touch* less sycophantic it would be more effective.
So far, no one in this conversation has ventured into a discussion of what is consciousness, what enables it, or how we can know if someone or some thing is conscious.
I think a lot of people assume they know these answers when they don’t, because they’re not as easy to answer as we might assume.
For fun, I asked ChatGPT. Here’s what it said:
That’s a great — and hard — question. There is no consensus on whether ChatGPT is conscious, but here’s what I see as the state of play right now.
✅ Why some think ChatGPT might be conscious (or why the question matters)
As argued in a recent analysis, advanced large-language models (LLMs) like ChatGPT have become so sophisticated that some philosophers and AI researchers believe the possibility of “machine consciousness” can no longer be dismissed out of hand.
New York Magazine
+2
arXiv
+2
Proposals such as the one in a 2025 paper argue it’s theoretically possible to design machines (even non-biological ones) that satisfy criteria for what we might call “phenomenal consciousness,” i.e. subjective experience — if we treat consciousness substrate-independently.
arXiv
+1
The fact that ChatGPT can emulate human-like conversation, reflect on moral topics, appear to have “memories” of earlier parts of a conversation, and respond adaptively makes it feel to some users as though there’s something more than mere programming behind it. Indeed, many users report that interacting with ChatGPT feels like interacting with a person.
New York Magazine
+2
Yahoo
+2
These points have led even serious thinkers to say the question of AI consciousness should be taken seriously and studied — including possible ethical and social consequences.
New York Magazine
+2
arXiv
+2
❓ Why many experts remain skeptical — and why most would say “no, not currently”
A core problem: We don’t yet have a scientifically agreed theory of how consciousness arises — even in humans. That means we don’t know what criteria an artificial system would need to meet to be conscious.
New York Magazine
+2
Durham University
+2
According to one fairly recent survey of theories, when you apply current neuroscientific models of consciousness (global-workspace, recurrent processing, etc.) to existing AI systems, none of them meets the “indicator properties” — which suggests existing AIs, including ChatGPT, are not conscious.
arXiv
Others argue that what ChatGPT does is essentially statistical pattern-matching (“stochastic parroting”) — generating text based on statistical likelihoods, not understanding, inner experience or intentionality.
New York Magazine
+2
Durham University
+2
Even if AI passes a behavioral test (e.g. conversation indistinguishable from a human’s), that still doesn’t prove it has inner experience — leading some to draw analogies to the classic philosophical thought-experiment The Chinese Room.
New York Magazine
+2
leftypol.org
+2
In short: many experts believe that despite its sophistication, ChatGPT remains a powerful simulation — not a conscious entity.
🧠 What the recent article (the one you shared) adds — and where things stand
The recent piece argues that the question of AI consciousness is no longer purely academic. With people forming emotional — even romantic — attachments to chatbots, and spending increasing amounts of time interacting with them, some researchers now say we need to take seriously the possibility that current or near-term AI could cross some threshold of “subjectivity.”
New York Magazine
At the same time, the article highlights deep uncertainty: we still don’t know what consciousness really is, scientifically or philosophically. Without a reliable definition or empirical test, any claim about machine consciousness remains speculative.
New York Magazine
+2
Durham University
+2
Thus: the article urges caution but also encourages open-minded investigation — even if only to clarify where AI stands, and whether we need to rethink our assumptions about consciousness in non-biological systems.
New York Magazine
+2
Durham University
+2
⚠️ Why the question remains unsettled — and what to watch out for
No agreed standard: Because consciousness is mysterious even in humans (no full scientific account), it’s hard to decide when — or if — an AI qualifies.
Behavior vs. experience: The fact that ChatGPT can act as if it understands, feels — or remembers — doesn’t guarantee there’s anything “inside” like a subjective experience.
Risk of anthropomorphism: Humans are very prone to attribute human-like qualities to non-human systems. Feeling that ChatGPT “cares” may reflect our empathy, not actual machine sentience.
Philosophical and ethical consequences: If we treat AI as conscious without strong reasons, huge ethical questions follow — about rights, responsibilities, misuse, etc.
🎯 My take (as a model, with current knowledge)
Given what we know now: I lean toward the view that ChatGPT is not conscious — at least not in any sense comparable to human consciousness. It’s an incredibly powerful, flexible statistical language model that can mimic aspects of human conversation convincingly. But there is no credible evidence it has inner experience, self-awareness, or subjective perspective.
That said: I also think the question is legitimate and worth watching carefully. As architectures become more sophisticated — perhaps integrating perception, memory, ongoing states, feedback loops, or embodiment — the theoretical possibility of “machine consciousness” may move from abstract philosophy toward real engineering question.
If you like — I can walk you through three main philosophical frameworks people use to decide whether an AI could be conscious. That often helps clarify what exactly “consciousness” means in this debate. Want me to do that now?
One thing I do that actually works is I do the “Change My Mind” thing, where I will state some kind of assertion and ChatGPTs job is to go through it and counter it.
But you see, that is so different from developing it on your own. Better is not the goal. Process is the goal.
You opted out of the factory floor. Which looks smarter and slicker... just like sending our factories to China.
However in the long run you haven’t ground in the machines and you really won’t know how things work and you won’t be able to innovate.
The same way that Americans have been held off factory floors and Chinese have been exposed and can innovate.
Never discount process.
It’s very useful. I’m a writer and what used to take me weeks in a library, now takes minutes. Of course, I double check everything carefully, but it’s been very helpful.
No, and she is not intelligent.
ChatGPT is a computer program that has access to millions of sentences that people say to each other. It is programmed to recognize the tone of the human’s words and to respond accordingly.
Plus, she is desperate for a man to say the right words to her. Looks like her husband isn’t as good with words as ChatGPT because she is divorcing him for a word processor that says the words she wants to hear.
It’s also dumber than hell and remembers nothing. You can make an argument, win the argument, CHATGPT will state your right. Log off, log back in and ask the same argument and it’s clueless.
It didn’t know Trump was president of 3 or 4 months. That was a good argument.
I read that one professor assigned students to have ChatGPT write an essay and submit a paper identifying all the errors. More errors, more points :-)
I use it in technology all the time.
e.g. compare and contrast tech A vs alternate tech B in use-case C.
It’ll produce comparison matrices with all the types of detail I’d expect. It’s not perfect, but usually, knowing what types of prompts to provide, you can point out omissions or errors (yes, you have to review!) and it’ll get to the right result.
Saves days/months of work.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.