It was just an example.
You probably can imagine some kind of level you would consider definitly conscious.
I recomend focusing on designing Tests before rigid definitions of states of tests. - it is much clearer that way what is asked from something to be conscious.
But again these are all just indirect tests because we cannot test the core of consciousness because we don't know the core of consciousness.
For example: people in developing countries throw away more food then in developed countries although it is relative to their income much more value. The reason is because they often do not own fridges, use a lot of rice which spoils fast or have difficulties with the food supply chain in other forms.
I’ve seen definitions that I like they where in the direction of „if a system can recognize a problem it has not encountered before and can attempt to solve it with onto the problem adapted solutions, then it is conscious“
But then again this is just a external crude form of test that can lead to something like „light bulbs emit warmth, so fire must be a light bulb“
A specific pattern of self-referencing data could be seen (or not) as low-level consciousness in the future, when we know what consciousness exactly is.
It might be that stockfish is already something future scientists would define as "conscious".
Altough it is diffucult for me to Imagine that specific example.
> What information goes out of the system which is novel?
I think there is very little truly novel information. Most information including the information of "breakthrough idea after mis-hearing someone" is just a mix of previous information.
I guess you are already aware of that... just for completness sake.
so i am not entirely sure what you mean with "trying to be an intellectual", to me it sounds like a personal attack tbh and a quite cynic one.
I wanted to preventively write about all the concepts i have looked at because i wanted to prevent that people get hung up on the form and stop discussing about the content the the core message of my post.
As i wrote i don't see that "150 years of Peirce" have produced a model that is similar to what i am trying to say here.
You apparently take a offence in whatever you are offended and i want to give you a chance to speak with me directly about whatever you seem to think i have missed under the precondition that you try to actually engage with my text and don't hand wave it in a cynical fashion like you did until now.
I have looked, as i wrote, at Peirce and although he describes theories that are similar to the end effects of the DDS with AI-skew, it still is something completely different.
Besides that i am saddened that you seem to put form over content and that you did not really engage with the blog post itself.
Just watched the end scenes and this more like an execution in a heroic light.
I have not seen something like this in this significants, vibe and presumed statement in western media. There are a many examples of uncelebrated murderes of “the bad guy” which the hero does not want or does “against their will” but I have seen no western examples of this kind of celebration of killing the bad guy.
There is no way people will put up with that.