You can argue there's no objective evidence for qualia in others than oneself, but I'm sure you know you have subjective experience just as I know I do.
> All of these appeals to differences with the brain never seem to acknowledge that fundamentally, the brain has the same explanatory gap with physics.
I don't claim that ANNs or other computational models are fundamentally different from brains in computational capacity (although AFAIK biological neurons are a lot more complex than those in ANNs, so drawing a parallel just because both are "neural networks" would be erroneous as well.) I'm claiming that language alone cannot represent qualia, so an ANN trained on the level of language alone cannot have subjective experience.
> This assumes a lot.
Perhaps, but so does the idea that "intelligence inherently develops a map of natural categories", including the rather elusive concept of intelligence itself. And that today's AI models could possess intelligence in whatever form that sentence requires.
If forming natural categories alone were enough for sentience, clustering algorithms could be sentient.
It has traditionally been assumed that only humans are sentient. Present understanding leans more and more towards many animals having some kind of sentience as well. Some of them are probably even self-aware. Language in animals is a lot more controversial, though.
Nobody knows how (or even why) sentience emerges. But since it seems to exist in other animals as well, including those that probably don't have language or abstract concepts, it would seem to be a product of something else than language. It might even be some kind of a spectrum, with different animals having different levels of sentience and, ultimately, even awareness.
You can argue there's no objective evidence for qualia in others than oneself, but I'm sure you know you have subjective experience just as I know I do.
> All of these appeals to differences with the brain never seem to acknowledge that fundamentally, the brain has the same explanatory gap with physics.
I don't claim that ANNs or other computational models are fundamentally different from brains in computational capacity (although AFAIK biological neurons are a lot more complex than those in ANNs, so drawing a parallel just because both are "neural networks" would be erroneous as well.) I'm claiming that language alone cannot represent qualia, so an ANN trained on the level of language alone cannot have subjective experience.
> This assumes a lot.
Perhaps, but so does the idea that "intelligence inherently develops a map of natural categories", including the rather elusive concept of intelligence itself. And that today's AI models could possess intelligence in whatever form that sentence requires.
If forming natural categories alone were enough for sentience, clustering algorithms could be sentient.
It has traditionally been assumed that only humans are sentient. Present understanding leans more and more towards many animals having some kind of sentience as well. Some of them are probably even self-aware. Language in animals is a lot more controversial, though.
Nobody knows how (or even why) sentience emerges. But since it seems to exist in other animals as well, including those that probably don't have language or abstract concepts, it would seem to be a product of something else than language. It might even be some kind of a spectrum, with different animals having different levels of sentience and, ultimately, even awareness.