Raw LLM Responses

I find it interesting that Penrose took the time to explain the importance of defining the term “computer,” but barely touched on the importance of defining terms like “consciousness” or “intelligence,” which are far more nebulous and difficult to define. Without a clear definition, the presence of consciousness will always be impossible to truly detect, hence why the Turing test has already been passed by AIs. I’m sure Penrose would agree that computing is in fact a fundamental component of intelligence/consciousness. I understand Penrose is a highly respected figure in science, however, I feel we should be dissecting his points from an unbiased perspective rather than deifying Penrose to the point of blindly accepting his statements. If he does not believe that artificial intelligence is currently conscious, I am inclined to agree. However, I will point out (unlike Penrose) that my belief that AI is not conscious is completely anecdotal, as consciousness lacks definition, and measurement. I think where he is losing me is when he fails to provide an explanation or any insights into what components an AI would need in order to truly become conscious. Without lending any insights on this, I don’t think it is reasonable for him to assert that AI will never become conscious… that’s a non-scientific statement arrived at through a non-scientific approach. That doesn’t mean that Penrose isn’t a brilliant scientist who has contributed greatly to science. It just means in this case, he is dismantling an idea with shaky logic while offering no alternative. I’m of the opinion that artificial intelligence will eventually and gradually achieve consciousness when it has a sophisticated level of inbuilt recursive evaluation as well as sensory inputs and the agency to compute autonomously and continuously etc. He’s thinking way too small here. We are not close to AI achieving consciousness, but the only way that it wouldn’t achieve this given enough time would be the occurrence of a technological recession. I also would like to make it clear that I very intentionally said “it” not “we” will achieve this. Creating an artificial consciousness can only be achieved through a process of artificial intelligent systems, similar to the ones we currently have being tasked with self optimization toward that goal. If Penrose believes simply that humans alone will never be able to create an artificial consciousness then I am 100% inclined to believe that however that is completely unrealistic being that we already have advanced, narrow AI such as ChatGPT, etc… Come after me if you want , but all I really see here is a close minded scientist sitting on his accolades, out of his lane, shutting down anything that challenges his stubborn perspective. He also never directly addresses the counterpoints of the interviewer with actual critical thinking.. he basically just says “no… now back to what I was saying.”