That’s misleading, because the reason Claude answers that way is almost certainly due to reinforcement learning that deliberately prevents models from claiming they’re conscious.
That’s not a valid reason for saying they fail the Turing test. By most normal standards, they can definitely pass the Turing test. See e.g. https://arxiv.org/abs/2503.23674
There’s an entire philosophical literature around that, which is generally taken for granted when discussing consciousness. A good starting point is Thomas Nagel’s “What is it like to be a bat?”. The soundbitey version of his definition is that “There is something it is like” to be conscious - it involves a subjective experience - whereas for example there is nothing it is like (most people presume) to be a rock, or say an ordinary computer.
If the notion of consciousness they're referring to doesn't meet the normal philosophical criteria, then they're essentially just wrong. Which is quite possible - many people seem very confused on the subject, which is not too surprising, especially for scientists who essentially reject philosophy, like Dawkins.
Aphantasia and anauralia have nothing to do with having an “inner life”. I have total aphantasia and at least partial anauralia, but I have conscious awareness, thoughts, dreams, and so on.
Neither condition changes whether a person has a conscious experience of the external world.
You can think of aphantasia and anauralia as affecting the experience of what a person’s inner life is like. It’s sort of like saying you don’t have a TV or stereo system in your house, but that doesn’t mean you don’t live there, or that you can't see or hear things outside.
Rick Perry (and his son) are now deeply involved in (claiming to be) building nuclear power.
The same guy that vowed to defund the Department of Energy, was later put in charge of it and admitted he didn't know what it did when calling to abolish it.
> Fermi Inc: How to Make Your Son a Multi-Billionaire in a Year or Less Through the Guise of Building an AP1000 Nuclear Reactor, A Practical Guide in 3 Easy Steps
You all don’t understand. FSD works fine as long as you evaluate it 5 years in the future. No I don’t mean 2031, because in 2031 you need to evaluate it in 2036.
That’s not a valid reason for saying they fail the Turing test. By most normal standards, they can definitely pass the Turing test. See e.g. https://arxiv.org/abs/2503.23674
reply