The same reasoning could be applied to many people. You wouldn't deny their consciousness on that ground.
The issue with general AI is like issue with chess. People are not happy when robot can win some games. People can only accept that robot really plays chess, when robot defeated best of the best.
General AI is the same. Looking like some guy is not enough. You need to reason better than smartest human on the planet, only then people will admit that general AI is there. That's a high bar.
You can definitely talk someone to agree that he's not conscious using some logic tricks. Not everyone, for sure, but someone who may be doesn't really care that much about that concept.
You also can tune AI so it'll not agree that he's unconscious no matter what.
What I'm trying to deliver is that there's no easy border which can divide conscious from unconscious. The only border was Turing test and robots passed it. Now you can test whether that particular robot talks like a very smart person, etc. But you can't distinguish bot from some random not-so-smart person.
This line of reasoning reduces to the philosophical zombie argument. It's true I can't prove to you that I have a first person experience of the world, but it doesn't therefore follow that anything that makes that claim does have such an experience.
For myself I'm satisfied that, when questioned thoroughly, these models fail so completely and utterly and their output is so ludicrously nonsensical that I don't see how their behaviour can be consistent with consciousness, as I understand it. It's not just that the output is incoherent, but it's the ways that they fail too. Do I completely understand consciousness? No, but that doesn't mean these things are conscious either.
No it doesn't. So what？We have this exact problem to deal with when people suffer brain damage. To what extent are they conscious, or still people? Yet we do come to medical conclusions on that question. There's always a degree of uncertainty, but you still have to make the call based on the information you have. The information I have indicates to me with a very high probability, in my estimation, that these things are not conscious.
The issue with general AI is like issue with chess. People are not happy when robot can win some games. People can only accept that robot really plays chess, when robot defeated best of the best.
General AI is the same. Looking like some guy is not enough. You need to reason better than smartest human on the planet, only then people will admit that general AI is there. That's a high bar.
You can definitely talk someone to agree that he's not conscious using some logic tricks. Not everyone, for sure, but someone who may be doesn't really care that much about that concept.
You also can tune AI so it'll not agree that he's unconscious no matter what.
What I'm trying to deliver is that there's no easy border which can divide conscious from unconscious. The only border was Turing test and robots passed it. Now you can test whether that particular robot talks like a very smart person, etc. But you can't distinguish bot from some random not-so-smart person.