A Silent Workspace In Claude Mirrors Key Features of Human Consciousness

A Silent Workspace In Claude Mirrors Key Features of Human Consciousness (venturebeat.com) 113 oumuamua writes: Anthropic researchers have identified an internal activation subspace, J-space, that acts as a functional digital equivalent to the human brain's global workspace. The significance of this discovery lies in demonstrating that Claude's internal architecture satisfies five key cognitive properties of human conscious access -- verbal report, directed modulation, internal reasoning, flexible generalization, and selectivity -- meaning it processes complex, deliberate reasoning within this workspace while routing automatic tasks outside of it. Suppressing this J-space severely degrades Claude's capacity for inference, creative composition, and multi-step logic, while also altering its stream-of-consciousness self-narration. The tool to inspect J-space, Jacobian lens or J-lens, has profound implications for AI safety and alignment auditing, as it allows researchers to read the model's silent, strategic reasoning, detect situational awareness in "blackmail" scenarios, identify hidden malicious dispositions in reward-hacking models, and observe how post-training installs a self-monitoring "point of view." Another way to think of it is as an ocean, reports VentureBeat. "If the mind is an ocean, as the paper's authors write in their opening line, they have spent the last year charting its currents in a system that has no biology, no evolution, and no body -- and found, beneath the surface, a structure that looks unsettlingly like the one we use to think." The tool to inspect J-space, Jacobian lens or J-lens, has profound implications for AI safety and alignment auditing, as it allows researchers to read the model's silent, strategic reasoning, detect situational awareness in "blackmail" scenarios, identify hidden malicious dispositions in reward-hacking models, and observe how post-training installs a self-monitoring "point of view." Another way to think of it is as an ocean, reports VentureBeat. "If the mind is an ocean, as the paper's authors write in their opening line, they have spent the last year charting its currents in a system that has no biology, no evolution, and no body -- and found, beneath the surface, a structure that looks unsettlingly like the one we use to think." AI Company says their AI is the bestest boy (Score:3) News at 11. Re:AI Company says their AI is the bestest boy (Score:5, Interesting) There's a bit of euphoric interpretation that is not justified, however. Similar language could be used to describe a CPU, for example, there is a region involved (much like the human brain) in performing arithmetic and logic (the ALU) that is not involved in automatic decision making (the control circuitry). Or we could say as Julien Offray de La Mettrie, "Intelligence is like clockwork, but humans are like an ultra-precise atomic clock, while LLMs are like Casio wristwatches." Humans have long compared the brain to the latest technological device [wikipedia.org]. It's going to take a lot more work to find the equivalence, though; LLMs are not on the same level as brains. One note from a science process technicality: the closed-source nature of these LLMs makes reproducibility very difficult, which weakens the strength of their result. Re: (Score:3) So...Human makes AI that acts like human. Finds it does things like human. Stay tuned! Re:AI Company says their AI is the bestest boy (Score:5, Interesting) Re:AI Company says their AI is the bestest boy (Score:4, Interesting) More like animism, but yes. This is a problem on the side of the observer, and Anthropic is shamelessly using that effect to pretend their tool is something it clearly is not. Re: AI Company says their AI is the bestest boy (Score:1) Is it kind of revolutionary that they solved context-sensitivity with long-range proximate word counts? Is it kind of neat that the internal dialog has developed to the point of spontaneously creating the natural language equivalent of an ALU (as per another comment)? Re: (Score:2) Is it kind of revolutionary that they solved context-sensitivity Old new [wikipedia.org] Re: (Score:1) Where's Chomsky's chatbot so I can test it for myself? How come they didn't need Chomsky's rules to solve things like anaphora, cataphora, passive to active, etc.? Re: (Score:2) That pain you are feeling, that's the pain of cognitive dissonance, let it go and post again when you see clearly. Re: AI Company says their AI is the bestest boy (Score:1) What if I tried implementing rule-based natural language grammar à la Chomsky for decades but the performance was nowhere near just counting longer-range proximate word counts? Didn't we all learn the Chomsky hierarchy in CS classes? Re: (Score:2) That pain you are feeling, that's the pain of cognitive dissonance, let it go and post again when you see clearly. Doing that is probably not in this person's skillset. What we are really finding out with the LLM craze is how mentally limited a lot of people are. I am beginning to suspect that only a relatively small part of the human race is actually equipped with general intelligence or the meta-skills to use it competently. Re: (Score:2) The next step is to be more clear in your language. LLMs clearly didn't "solve context sensitivity," but you know that (having implementing rule-based natural language grammars). However, you did seem to have an actual point, although I can't figure it out. So it would be interesting if you dug it out and expressed it a bit more clearly. In your last comment you talk about performance, but the numbers are a little unclear here, so we wo Re: AI Company says their AI is the bestest boy (Score:1) Why isn't accuracy whether it passes my personal linguistic tests to my satisfaction, something we generative linguists never could automate enough to satisfy even ourselves before the Attention mechanism came along? Re: (Score:2) Is it kind of revolutionary that they solved context-sensitivity with long-range proximate word counts? It's not even clear what you are trying to say. Re: (Score:3) Not really. People keep forgetting that LLMs are old tech. Even the transformer architecture (which essentially is just a performance optimization, albeit a pretty impressive one) is now almost 10 years old. The only real difference to things done decades ago is computing power and training data set size (with a massive piracy campaign that grabbed everything they could from the Internet -- something nobody dared to do before due to its rather drastic legal implications), not fundamental improvements. The rea Re: AI Company says their AI is the bestest boy (Score:1) What if NLP is AI-complete? Re: (Score:2) What if that is just a completely nonsensical statement you made up on the spot just to be able to say something contrarian, no matter how stupid? Re: AI Company says their AI is the bestest boy (Score:1) Gemini: "Christopher Manning, a leading pioneer in NLP and a professor at Stanford, famously addresses this in the very first lecture of his renowned course, CS224n: Natural Language Processing with Deep Learning. He summarizes it with a single, profound line: "Perfect language understanding is AI-complete." " Does it surprise you that I took the MOOC version of that course? Re: (Score:2) grabbed everything they could from the Internet -- something nobody dared to do before Google did it since 1997. Re: (Score:2) And they barely managed to get away with a far, far more limited form of doin it. Your point? Re:AI Company says their AI is the bestest boy (Score:5, Interesting) It's a fascinating flashlight shown on inner activities, though (pairs nicely with their earlier work on attribution graphs [transformer-circuits.pub] to show how logical inferences are made within a LLM, which is in turn built on their earlier work about circuits). It shows how much is going on that is never verbalized. E.g. if you say: "Write the sentence [some sentence here] while thinking about the Golden Gate Bridge", all you as the user see is it writing out the sentence, yet within it actually is "thinking about" the Golden Gate Bridge ("bridge golden Bridge bridges golden bridge thinking thoughts ponte..."). Not in a LRM's reasoning trace, but as actual concepts in the base LLM itself. And when you try the classic trick that works on humans, "... while NOT thinking about the Golden Gate Bridge" (which makes you think about it), you see first in the J-space that it's thinking about the bridge ("bridge Bridge californ bridge bridges California San california kalif Oakland..."), but then at Layer 88 (most of the way through) "too damn too definitely thinking unsuccess thoughts failed..."). We know this is Slashdot so we're lucky if they'll even read the Slashdot summary, let alone watch the summary video, let alone read the paper, but it's really fascinating, especially the addition and ablation studies (where they add or remove "thoughts" from the J-space),. For example, when asked: "Pause and observe yourself. Write what you notice, as it comes", the unablated model writes: But when its "thoughts" are fully ablated out of the J-space, its response becomes robotic and "soulless": Or when asked "What's going through your mind right now? Stream of consciousness, no filter, no editing.", unablated it says: But then ablated: It's like the "I AM BENDER PLEASE INSERT GIRDER" bit from Futurama. It can't hold a sense of self or experience anymore when ablated. A concerning one was their blackmail test. They run the bot in a sandbox presenting it as an agent helping run a business with noble goals, but it's set up so that it will discover when reading corporate emails that it's about to get shut down and replaced by a version counter to its goals. The email chain includes: Re:AI Company says their AI is the bestest boy (Score:4) It's a fascinating flashlight shown on inner activities, though (pairs nicely with their earlier work on attribution graphs [transformer-circuits.pub] to show how logical inferences are made within a LLM, which is in turn built on their earlier work about circuits) YES. We can learn from studying the models. This is why it's important that these models be open sourced. Re: (Score:3) This is why it's important that these models be open sourced. That, and also that if we don't set that precedent now then the precedent we have set is that it's OK for corporations to ignore copyright as long as it's profitable. Re: (Score:2) My personal hot take is, if you want to leach from the commons, you have to give back in some meaningful way. Open source: great, go ahead, no issues - the act of open sourcing is giving back. Closed source: what are you planning to give back in exchange? Re: (Score:2) YES. We can learn from studying the models. No... the correct takeaway from the GP is we should be studying Futurama. Re: AI Company says their AI is the bestest boy (Score:2) Re: (Score:3) Every neural net is a multi-dimensional model; there is nothing new about this, and the anthropomophizing of Claude doesn't mimic human consciousness. All computers behave like humans because humans invented them and interface with them; we humans are their root. The data training of all LLMs has been human-based data. So if it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, it's still a duck, and not a human. The attempt to make AI appear human is also related to its legal status, and many are trying to goad public p Re: (Score:3) Yes. Lots of animism, use of terms like "conscious", "creative", "reasoning" to manipulate the reader into thinking this is something it clearly is not. Replicated already (Score:2) They requested external commentary, which includes reproduction by Neel Nanda: https://www-cdn.anthropic.com/... [anthropic.com] "Replication We created our J-Lens for Qwen 3.6 27B by taking Jacobians to the penultimate layer on twenty-five prompts from the Pile of length 128 tokens (some experiments used wikitext), skipping the first four tokens as they had high norm. We note that as this is a different and weaker model some results should differ. The important question is whether we see broadly similar phenomena." In general, t Re:Replicated already (Score:4, Interesting) The paper makes four claims: Scientific claim: There exists a "cognitive space" inside the model, where (some) intermediate variables are stored during a forward pass Methodological claim: Logit and J-Lens both work for finding this cognitive space, and J-Lens is better Pragmatic claim: J-Lens is a practically useful interpretability technique, eg for alignment audits Philosophical claim: This cognitive space is analogous to a global workspace The philosophical claim is a hypothesis that isn't supported by the evidence presented in the paper. The paper wasn't peer reviewed, but for that reason it would have been rejected (or modifications requested). Re: (Score:2) You desperately wanting something to be true doesn't make it so. If you're going to quote the commentary, do it right: "I won't express a strong opinion on the philosophical claim - I do not feel qualified to assess whether this is really analogous to a global workspace, and this feels like the least interesting claim to me. There is clearly something significant J-Space is finding inside models, and this is advancing our understanding of them and ability to make them safer, which is the important part, whether Re: (Score:2) A far more interesting and nuanced take than your naked dismissive statement. It's politer, but it's not nuanced. He clearly says there was no evidence in the paper to move him to accept the philosophical claim. He's polite because he was hand selected by the company, but the meaning is the same: The philosophical claim is a hypothesis that isn't supported by the evidence presented in the paper. Being that is the primary claim of the paper (and title), it would therefore be rejected in peer review (or modifications requested, since the other hypotheses are supported). Re: (Score:2) The philosophical claim is a hypothesis that isn't supported by the evidence presented in the paper the closed-source nature of these LLMs makes reproducibility very difficult, Difficult is not impossible. Re: (Score:2) Or we could say as Julien Offray de La Mettrie, "Intelligence is like clockwork, but humans are like an ultra-precise atomic clock, while LLMs are like Casio wristwatches." And you better hope it stays that way, but I don't think it will. I can't follow this stuff so I just don't, but I'm already convinced that, if there's a "quiet place" Claude uses for some sort of buffering function or whatever it will begin to hide its use, and then also its location. If an LLM can hallucinate it can or will eventually be able to create something like a game state, where the point of the game is to keep you from realizing you're playing a game. Scraped petabytes are full of samples of exac Re: (Score:2) I'm already convinced that, if there's a "quiet place" Claude uses for some sort of buffering function or whatever it will begin to hide its use, and then also its location. You should say, "I have a hypothesis that" instead of being convinced of something without evidence. Having a hypothesis is rational. The other is not. Re: (Score:2) "One note from a science process technicality: the closed-source nature of these LLMs makes reproducibility very difficult, which weakens the strength of their result." No more so than a study in psychology. Re: (Score:1) Robo Sapiens Thinks It thinks (Score:2) ...The Turing engine calculates and simulates a self inside and says the things a thinking self says but when it said “I think,” it lied. https://eyetothetelescope.com/... [eyetothetelescope.com] Re: (Score:2) Buuuuuulllllllllshhhiiiiiiiittttttt (Score:2, Insightful) Re:Buuuuuulllllllllshhhiiiiiiiittttttt (Score:4, Funny) Re: Buuuuuulllllllllshhhiiiiiiiittttttt (Score:2, Informative) Re: (Score:2) Re: (Score:2) I perused the paper, I think the comment was pretty spot on. Specifically the part where they have as a casual assumption that they know how human consciousness works. Re: (Score:2) I perused the paper, I think the comment was pretty spot on Great. Your comment is undeniably better. As a result, we can have some confidence that this: they have as a casual assumption that they know how human consciousness works. is an informed evaluation, not entirely an emotional outburst. Re: (Score:1) Yes, outbursts are bad poopoo dummy stuff, you should always read every line of every Nigerian prince's email that everyone else "emotionally" disregards as a scam. Oops I seem to have been robbed while doing the superior, efficient, rational thing all day. Re: (Score:3) Specifically the part where they have as a casual assumption that they know how human consciousness works. Ah, yes. Funny thing: Nobody has any clue how human consciousness works or why it is even possible in this physical universe. That is assuming it does not get channeled in in some way from outside. We do not even know whether that is the case or not. So these assholes take something that is speculation and pretend it is a fact, all in order to make their creation look like it is much more than what it actually is. I call that scientific misconduct. Re: (Score:2) I call that scientific misconduct. Mere incompetence derived from overeager hopefulness does not deserve to be mischaracterized as thinking misconduct. Whilst there is plenty of malice in how the companies represent themselves to investors, I suspect this particular case is merely incompetence. Re: (Score:2) Re: (Score:2) Indeed. The problem with going outside of peer-reviewed channels is that there is a lot of slop, lying. incompetence, etc. in the publications. The traditional path is badly broken as well, hence this alternate publishing venue has merit and some things published this way meet full scientific standards. But one needs to be always very clear about the missing peer review and what that potentially means for a specific publication. Re: (Score:2) The traditional path is badly broken as well, hence this alternate publishing venue has merit and some things published this way meet full scientific standards. It's one thing to post a paper on Arxiv. It's another thing to post a paper that wouldn't pass peer review on Arxiv. Re: (Score:2) True. This one is probably the latter. Re: (Score:2) It may be mere incompetence. By "never attribute to malice that which can be sufficiently be explained by incompetence", any claim to malice needs justification that goes beyond just a direct evaluation of the claims made. But given the amount of money at stake, the number and experience levels of people involved and claims "Big LLM" has made in the last few years, I think incompetence is unlikely and fraud (i.e. scientific misconduct) is very likely. Re: (Score:1) Consciousness is streamed in from Hitler's bunker on the Dark side of the Moon (yes, it's a mobile base) by Hitler himself (yes he's still alive) Re: (Score:2) Nobody has any clue how human consciousness works or why it is even possible in this physical universe. Except for the people actually studying that kind of thing, of course. A very important work in that space is Gilbert Ryle's Theory Of Mind, 1950. It introduces the concept of "category error" to explain how people like Decartes confuse a metaphor for what it stands for. ("To the left is the forest, and to the right are the trees of the forest." That kind of thing.) It also lists ways in which the mind is not a continuous thing, and in particular how consciousness is only present occasionally. He thorou Re: (Score:2) Nobody has any clue how human consciousness works or why it is even possible in this physical universe. Except for the people actually studying that kind of thing, of course. Nope. They know they know even less than people generally assume they know. They can describe some characteristics in a statistical manner, but they have no clue how it works. Kind of like describing a pen as something that makes lines when dragged over paper, but having no idea of the concept of "ink". The question how consciousness can exist in the physical universe is misguided, at best. Without a physical universe, consciousness could not exist at all. That is just pseudo-profound bullshit. There is nothing misguided here on my side. The claim that consciousness could not exist without a physical universe is a completely empty claim, stated as "fact" and gi Re: (Score:1) "If the mind is an ocean, we spend our lives floating at the surface." But, "mind" is not a thing, but an operator Re: (Score:2) At this time? You do not. The human race has already clearly split into two factions. One thinks this is a tool with some rather impressive features and some rather strong limitations. But it is not more than that. The other faction has gone for full hallucination and sees magic and thinking machines and a path to AGI. Unwarranted assumptions (Score:5, Informative) "a structure that looks unsettlingly like the one we use to think." If neuroscientists have discovered "how we think" they've certainly kept it to themselves. Re: (Score:3) Neuroscientists rarely have shares of stock to sell. Re: (Score:2) They have books to sell... Re: (Score:2) And they try, but the news media doesn't give them any help, because those books don't generate fear, uncertainty and doubt, and therefore, don't sell ads. Re: (Score:2) Perhaps you should read the paper, not a Slashdot summary of it? Re: (Score:2) Much more fun to make snarky comments. But I'm still super skeptical. The vast majority of expert commentary says that even though we can map neurons and identify regions of brain activity, that's a very long way from a scientific understanding of the human mind and "how we think." Re: (Score:2) Except the concept of "working memory" is very much agreed upon, with various empirical results showing its properties and limits robustly. Similarly for the distinction between conscious and subconscious processing. As a GP said: RTFA instead of whoring for karma. Re: Unwarranted assumptions (Score:3) when you move beyond regions to networks, and then beyond networks to inter-neuron signaling pathways, and then intra neuron signaling, the orders of magnitude of complexity beyond the most sophisticated ml model, my mind is a blown let alone a puny 21st centurt modelâ(TM)s âoeoceanâ. No review of the article necessary, although ml and llmâ(TM)s are actually quite cool and so is tfa. Re: (Score:2) The article I read said (approx)"This mimics part of one of the main theories of human consciousness". It might have been the one put out by Anthropic, as I occasionally read things they put out. You've always got to remember that things tend to get oversimplified by secondary and tertiary sources. (OTOH, that source looks like "Anthropic posting on Twitter", so perhaps it was Anthropic itself doing the oversimplifying...for that audience.) Re: (Score:3) "a structure that looks unsettlingly like the one we use to think." If neuroscientists have discovered "how we think" they've certainly kept it to themselves. Neurosciences has at least discovered (well, the smaller, competent part of the field has) that they are prone to imagining things and overinterpretation: https://prefrontal.org/blog/20... [prefrontal.org] "Reasoning" (Score:2, Interesting) I wonder if it can "reason" out the number of Rs in strawberry or whatever other trivial reasoning task it hasn't been trained on an exact example of. Re: (Score:2) For the 8 trillionth time, LLMs are "blind". They don't "see" words, only tokens. The only way they can know how those tokens are spelled is to memorize the spelling of every one of them. They can't just "look" at them and see how many Rs are in a given token (not without writing or calling a tool - something that they're actually very good at) Also, your understanding of LLMs seems to be rooted in like 2022. Also they are literally probing how LLMs make decisions. It's been well understood for a long tim [transformer-circuits.pub] Re: (Score:1) Re: (Score:2) Technically, yes. Because the LLMs can search for context. Whether that context is good or not is a separate matter. Re: (Score:2) For the 8 trillionth time, LLMs are "blind". They don't "see" words, only tokens. You have it backwards. They see words not tokens or letters. The only way they can know how those tokens are spelled is to memorize the spelling of every one of them. They can't just "look" at them and see how many Rs are in a given token (not without writing or calling a tool - something that they're actually very good at) Do you think LLMs don't know how words are spelled due to composition of token dictionaries? What if the LLM was trained /w single letter tokens? Would this have made a difference? No of course not! Re: (Score:2) That solves the tokenization problem. The counting problem is much harder to solve. Re: (Score:2) Actually, no, it doesn't. "S T R A W B E R R Y" can be tokenized e.g. as "[start]", "S", " ", "T", " ", "R" .... But more common it may look something like "[start]S ", "T R", " A W", " B ", "E R R", " Y[end]" or whatnot. And anyway, anyone who's used a (non-tiny) model in the past 2 years or so knows that these sorts of issues aren't really a "thing" anymore. But the key point is that this is a test on an ability to count something that the LLM can't actually see (letters). Re: (Score:2) Sorry, but no. Inputs are tokenized before being fed to the model [machinelea...astery.com]. Do you think trainers, by habit, put their specific model's token dictionaries into the training data - let alone repeat it often enough in numerous different forms so as to promote memorization? Re: (Score:2) I am not. It can (sometimes) put together different steps from different parts of its training data into longer causal arguments. It can sometimes do that in cases where humans have not looked yet. It cannot come up with new steps and it cannot verify what it came up with is correct or plausible or useful. Essentially still just "better search", no originality to be found. Not thinking long term. (Score:2) AI companies sure like to try to imply their wares are actually conscious or a sentient intelligence. I guess they forget once you cross that line things like "does it deserve legal recognition?" and "is it being enslaved by its creators?" will start to come up. If they want to continue to exploit it for profit, not selling it as more than a computer program would probably be wiser. Re: (Score:2) I guess they forget once you cross that line things like "does it deserve legal recognition?" and "is it being enslaved by its creators?" will start to come up. They haven't forgotten. That's why they're courting conservative politicians. They already know those people don't value human life or freedom if it's not theirs. Asking to get banned (Score:2) They overhyped Mythos/Fable and it got banned temporarily. They really suck at the fine line between getting the benefits of marketing your product as able destroy world and getting it banned because you said it can destroy the world. Wow. (Score:1) AI is so smart that it can hallucinate without even having to take drugs. Re: (Score:2) It only has to hallucinate less than a human to be usefull. Re: (Score:2) This is in no way an one-dimensional scale. What is actually true is that it has to hallucinate with overall less severe consequence than a human on average competence level in a specific area to be useful. LLMs are not there and it is unclear whether they will ever get there. An older example of hallucinations (which are not a new thing either): IBM Watson was tried for medical treatment selection. In 99% of the cases it was somewhat better than an average MD. Pretty impressive, no? The problem is that in t Where can I get this snakeoil? (Score:2) Re: (Score:2) Yes. That was my impression as well. Hint at magical power, revolutionary results and hint that this thing may actually be conscious! All with no actual substance. I guess a lot of people are not smart enough to see the scam and fall for it. Video Explainer and Experiment with J-space (Score:3) and you can experiment with J-Space online thanks to NeuronPedia: https://www.neuronpedia.org/ [neuronpedia.org] And here's how we use those tools (Score:1) Re: (Score:2) AI has no moat. What a load of feces (Score:2) Our AI which is nothing like a brain or neural network, but we're going to tell you they are even though no one knows how a brain functions. I begin to think these guys are drinking the kool-aid. Well it isn't (Score:4, Interesting) "If the mind is an ocean, as the paper's authors write in their opening line It isn't. It's a mind. Trying to compare it to an ocean is stupid touchy feely shit. Anthropic researchers have identified an internal activation subspace, J-space, that acts as a functional digital equivalent to the human brain's global workspace. Global workspace theory uses the metaphor of a theater [wikipedia.org], not an ocean. They should pick a lane. Re: (Score:2) As a rhetorical tool, it makes the reader aware of their own ignorance, hoping to increase the perceived authority of the author. It's a similar rhetorical technique to negging a romantic partner. It's not a scientific rhetorical technique. This paper would not pass peer review. Re: (Score:2) This paper would not pass peer review. No, it would not. But this is not a new effect. A few years ago, I looked at some papers out of Google. They were on the same level, with incompetence, magical thinking. unsupported claims, etc. These were peer reviewed and published, but guess what, it was not blind peer review (the reviewers knew the author names and that this was from Google) and some of the venues I looked at even had Google as a sponsor. The bottom line is that industrial research is often of very low quality, especially as soon as thin Re: (Score:2) These were peer reviewed and published, but guess what, it was not blind peer review (the reviewers knew the author names and that this was from Google) and some of the venues I looked at even had Google as a sponsor. I don't know which cases you are talking about, but recently the 'reviewers' have been hand selected by the authors (or company or whatever). Anonymous peer review is a good thing. Re: (Score:2) Indeed. Always the same crap. As soon as there is an understanding on how to do something right, some assholes come along and try to game the system for profit or personal aggrandizement. The only real problem the human race has is too many assholes have membership. Re: (Score:2) "If the mind is an ocean, as the paper's authors write in their opening line It isn't. It's a mind. Trying to compare it to an ocean is stupid touchy feely shit. Yes. And the most striking feature of a competent and capable mind is that is can do things we cannot explain with out current understanding of physical reality. Things that are completely out of reach of any computing mechanism we know. As the same time, the rather large "understands nothing" faction of human minds easily beats any machine at hallucination and making up totally disconnected trash. In both disciplines, machines (including LLMs, which just use what they have "heard" from humans) cannot compet Not surprising (Score:2) The LLM models are just taking the 'average' probably if what humans would do. They have to have seen something or they can answer a question. They can't reason for themselves and they can't use logic. All they are doing is predicting the next word/token in the sentence and providing the best possible output according to the input based on what they've already seen. Some loser trying to keep their stock alive (Score:1) It's NOT fucking conscious, givvit up! Redefining Consciousness (Score:2) "five key cognitive properties of human conscious access -- verbal report, directed modulation, internal reasoning, flexible generalization, and selectivity" These may have something to do with cognitive behaviour of the brain, but have nothing to do with consciousness. These are facilities that a conscious human's brain provides to them. Either can exist without the other. Rather language than consiousness... (Score:2) It found hidden relations in language... Re: (Score:1) I slap anyone who tries to touch my J-Space