Knowledge Tree
Relations (1)
cross_type 2.00 — strongly supporting 3 facts
Anil Seth explores the nature of understanding in the context of AI, questioning whether it can be separated from consciousness [1] and suggesting that embodied language models may achieve it [2]. He further argues that the criteria for AI to reach true understanding are more attainable than those for consciousness [3].
Facts (3)
Sources
AI Sessions #9: The Case Against AI Consciousness (with Anil Seth) conspicuouscognition.com 3 facts
perspectiveAnil Seth posits that consciousness and understanding might be separable, noting that while he previously assumed understanding required conscious apprehension, he is now uncertain if AI models can 'grok' or understand information without consciousness.
perspectiveAnil Seth suggests that language models, particularly those embodied in a world and trained while embodied, could potentially be described as 'understanding' things, even if they lack consciousness.
perspectiveAnil Seth believes that the criteria for a language model to achieve true understanding are more achievable through current technological trajectories than the criteria for achieving consciousness.