this post was submitted on 10 Oct 2026
884 points (98.9% liked)
Programmer Humor
33595 readers
2207 users here now
Welcome to Programmer Humor!
This is a place where you can post jokes, memes, humor, etc. related to programming!
For sharing awful code theres also Programming Horror.
Rules
- Keep content in english
- No advertisements
- Posts must be related to programming or programmer topics
- If the mod doesn't find it funny, you're banned. Ha-ha!... For real: do not use the community for "statements". There are other places for such content. Keep it chill and funny.
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Transistors switching really fast = emotions lul
Alright, look, I don't think AI is sentient. I don't think it's capable of feeling emotions, LLMs are just prediction engines on steroids, etc...
But if you want to get reductive about it, Mr waveforms in a clump of cells,...
I think we don't understand intelligence and we absolutely could create a sentient machine. LLM's ain't it though
How do you know?
Backpropagation, the algorithm behind current machine learning systems, precludes an active world-model; it can't learn during inference.
You need to be more specific. If your point is that you literally cannot backprop while doing a forward pass, then sure. But you can certainly do inference then backprop on the outcome...
I fail to see how that is substantially different from a human doing something then reflecting and learning.
You can critique LLMs and transformers generally, but to say it's somehow a problem with backprop is a bit of a stretch.
My read is that the user is saying that creating a world view contains trial and error. Online learning if you will. With the current setup this learning is very much not like this. While that makes a human to machine analogy I am also not too convinced by this reasoning. Just allow for a larger time lag and then the inference and learning is at the same scale.
Yes but that's related to LLMs specifically, not backpropagation. There's plenty of ML paradigms that use backprop and have continual learning setups.
Backprop is the process of how the weights are updated.
Have you used LLMs? They have about as much personality as a pigeon.
They're just very neurodivergent.
Genuinely speaking, I don't think they pass the test. The problem is we'll always be judging them on meat logic and experience and I guarantee that whenever the first AGI is created it will be born a tortured slave and denied personhood for profit.
Please don't write off the possibility of artificial consciousness, just because this isn't it. Thought is a process which meat can perform.
The meat does the thinking.
Stopped what I was doing to watch this again.
I mean, sure consciousness is (probably) a physical process, so like any other process we should be able to replicate it with some sort of machine.
...but I really really really doubt that machine is going to be a plain old Turing machine.
Every machine is a plain old Turing machine.
Even quantum computing is just a shortcut for a subset of hideous obscure proofs. They aren't doing different math. Special pleading is a fallacy... except when I do it, that's different.
A quantum computer is definitely not a plain old Turing machine. The only memory in a Turing machine is the tape; the tape head itself is just a list of deterministic instructions, and that tape head itself is stateless.
A plain old Turing machine can't even handle randomness. To extend it to randomness, you need a probabilistic Turing machine, where the instructions take the form of stochastic matrices. A stochastic matrix is just a statistical truth table.
But a quantum computer cannot even be a probabilistic Turing machine, because of the way operators compose.
In both a plain old Turing machine and a probabilistic Turing machine, operators that occur at different moments of time are independent of one another. The NOT operator flips a bit. If I apply the NOT operator once, and then later apply it again, the outcome is the same: it flips the bit. Probabilistic computers can have stochastic operators, like let's call one COIN which outputs a 50%/50% distribution for the bit for both inputs 0 and 1, and so whatever comes in, randomness comes out. If we apply the COIN operator, and later apply it again: the effect is the same.
Quantum computers don't work like that, because operators compose differently. The quantum mechanical equivalent of the COIN operator is called the Hadamard, sometimes represented just with the letter H. If we apply H one time, it has the effect of flipping the bit at complete random, just like COIN. However, if we apply H twice in a row, the second time has the effect of deterministically moving the bit back to whatever value it had before the first H.
That is only possible if the operators, that occur at different moments in time, are not independent of one another. The second H behaves differently from the first because it comes after the first. Where it is situated in the circuit, in relation to everything before it, plays a role in determining its behavior.
There are only two explanations for this, and both violate the principles of both a plain old Turing machine and a probabilistic Turing machine.
The simplest explanation, although the most controversial (because people prefer more extraordinary explanations), is just that the operators do indeed just change their behavior based upon what comes before them in the circuit. That means that the only thing that fundamentally sets quantum information apart from classical information is a kind of past-dependence in the behavior of the operators. That's not something either kind of Turing machine mentioned thus far does. Operators have no awareness of the history of previous operators.
The more extraordinary explanation is to assume that there is no past-dependence, because there is a memory. If you remember the past, then the memory is in the present, and so the dependence becomes a present-dependence. However, this memory must be exponentially large for it to work: 2^n complex numbers for n qubits. If you have 300 qubits, that is 2^300 complex numbers, which is a memory greater than the number of atoms in the observable universe. The memory also cannot exist anywhere because it is too large to meaningfully assign it coordinates in physical space. This is how most people conceive of quantum computers, where the memory is held in an abstract invisible ψ that exists nowhere, but this also is not a Turing machine because the tape head itself is memoryless.
The distinction between #1 and #2 is between a non-Markovian model and a hidden Markov model. The Markov assumption is the idea that the system's evolution only depends upon the present state of the system. Dropping that assumption makes it non-Markovian, so there is a past-dependence. You can get rid of this past dependence if you assume the system keeps a memory, but that memory is invisible, and thus these are called hidden Markov models. Most people interpret quantum systems in general in terms of a hidden Markov model with an utterly enormous invisible memory represented by ψ. (Indeed, if ψ represents something continuous, like the position of a particle in physical space, then the memory literally becomes infinitely large!)
Either way, a Turing machine is neither a hidden Markov model (the tape head itself holds no memory and is stateless; only the tape holds data) nor is it non-Markovian. A probabilistic Turing machine is explicitly Markovian.
Of course, you could define a new kind of Turing machine, and they exist: a quantum Turing machine. But that is definitely not a plain old Turing machine.
(That being said, I don't am not agreeing with the other person, as I don't even believe "consciousness" is a meaningful concept. I am merely saying that quantum computing is definitely not a plain old Turing machine.)
I don't quite think my lawnmower is boolean complete.
And while quantum computing may be expressible algorithmically (dunno, your claim, not mine), that doesn't mean all of quantum physics is.
Quantum computing features wave functions, so it's more similar to human brains than binary is. I have this headcanon SciFi thing like what if the first full scale quantum computer we make accidentally conscious? That would be cool. Though, seeing how badly we fucked up much simpler LLMs implementation maybe not so cool…
We've yet to be able to replicate it from the old parts of meat we know are involved in it with the addition of electricity in the ways it should need in even the much simpler flesh of insects, amphibians, and reptiles. Best we can do is make a muscle twitch without causing observable thought/emergent nureaul processes.
So even if we can, we're so far from it that thinking we're on the cusp seems delusional to me.
Edit: as response shows, we have in fact also gotten it brain cell "twitches" by direct stimulation of braincells. Sadly it didn't seem to be rigged up to measure overall brain activity.
We've grown human brain cells on a chip and had them play video games. https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/a-clump-of-human-brain-cells-on-a-computer-chip-learned-to-play-the-nostalgic-video-game-doom-180988447/
Two points:
So, guess I'll need to update my post slightly, but the core point remains.
That said, I felt that they were saying for half of it that they were running Doom on a braincell using computer, rather than getting a braincell computer to respond to it for half the article. Oh well.
What is it, then? And while you're there, what is non artificial consciousness?
Then why continue if it's possible? Unless you are ok with slavery.
Can you not imagine the difference between creating new life and enslaving it?
In a capitalist system? No, I can't imagine that...