This paper explores the hypothesis that the OpenAI-o1 model--a transformer-based AI trained with reinforcement learning from human feedback (RLHF)--displays characteristics of consciousness during its training and inference phases. Adopting functionalism, which argues that mental states are defined by their functional roles, we assess the possibility of AI consciousness. Drawing on theories from neuroscience, philosophy of mind, and AI research, we justify the use of functionalism and examine the model's architecture using frameworks like Integrated Information Theory (IIT) and active inference. The paper also investigates how RLHF influences the model's internal reasoning processes, potentially giving rise to consciousness-like experiences. We compare AI and human consciousness, addressing counterarguments such as the absence of a biological basis and subjective qualia. Our findings suggest that the OpenAI-o1 model shows aspects of consciousness, while acknowledging the ongoing debates surrounding AI sentience.

The "brain in a jar" is a thought experiment of a disembodied human brain living in a jar of sustenance. The thought experiment explores human conceptions of reality, mind, and consciousness. This article will explore a metaphysical argument against artificial intelligence on the grounds that a disembodied artificial intelligence, or a "brain" without a body, is incompatible with the nature of intelligence.[1] The brain in a jar is a different inquiry than traditional questions about artificial intelligence. The brain in a jar asks whether thinking requires a thinker.

There is something reassuring about Mary Oliver's words. Especially in an era of rapid change, there is comfort to be had in those things that move slowly. But oceans rise and mountains fall; nothing stays the same. Not even the way poetry is made. The disappearance of the author in 20th-century literary criticism can perhaps be traced back to the surrealist movement and its game of "exquisite corpse." The surrealists believed that a poem can emerge not only from the unconscious mind of an individual, but from the collective mind of many individuals working in consort -- even, or perhaps especially, if each individual has minimal knowledge of what the others are doing. Soon the idea of making art from recycled objects emerged.

The "brain in a jar" is a thought experiment of a disembodied human brain living in a jar of sustenance. The thought experiment explores human conceptions of reality, mind, and consciousness. This article will explore a metaphysical argument against artificial intelligence on the grounds that a disembodied artificial intelligence, or a "brain" without a body, is incompatible with the nature of intelligence.[1] The brain in a jar is a different inquiry than traditional questions about artificial intelligence. The brain in a jar asks whether thinking requires a thinker.

We are excited to bring Transform 2022 back in-person July 19 and virtually July 20 - 28. Join AI and data leaders for insightful talks and exciting networking opportunities. The "brain in a jar" is a thought experiment of a disembodied human brain living in a jar of sustenance. The thought experiment explores human conceptions of reality, mind, and consciousness. This article will explore a metaphysical argument against artificial intelligence on the grounds that a disembodied artificial intelligence, or a "brain" without a body, is incompatible with the nature of intelligence. The brain in a jar is a different inquiry than traditional questions about artificial intelligence.

The "brain in a jar" is a thought experiment of a disembodied human brain living in a jar of sustenance. The thought experiment explores human conceptions of reality, mind, and consciousness. This article will explore a metaphysical argument against artificial intelligence on the grounds that a disembodied artificial intelligence, or a "brain" without a body, is incompatible with the nature of intelligence.[1] The brain in a jar is a different inquiry than traditional questions about artificial intelligence. The brain in a jar asks whether thinking requires a thinker. The possibility of artificial intelligence primarily revolves around what is necessary to make a computer (or a computer program) intelligent.

Department of Computing Imperial College London 180 Queen's Gate London SW7 2RH United Kingdom April 2015 Abstract This paper critically assesses the anti-functionalist stance on consciousness adopted by certain advocates of integrated information theory (IIT), a corollary of which is that human-level artificial intelligence implemented on conventional computing hardware is necessarily not conscious. The critique draws on variations of a well-known gradual neuronal replacement thought experiment, as well as bringing out tensions in IIT's treatment of self-knowledge. The aim, though, is neither to reject IIT outright nor to champion functionalism in particular. Rather, it is suggested that both ideas have something to offer a scientific understanding of consciousness, as long as they are not dressed up as solutions to illusory metaphysical problems. As for human-level AI, we must await its development before we can decide whether or not to ascribe consciousness to it.

Stewart Brand, of Whole Earth Catalog fame, is a technology enthusiast. In 1986, he spent three months in the fantasyland of his choice, MIT's Media Laboratory (formerly the Architecture Machine Group). In his latest book, The Media Lab: Inventing the Future at MIT (Viking/ Penguin, New York, 1988, 285 pp., $10, ISBN 0-14-009701-5), he tells the world what he found.

Part of the Media Laboratory's Steve Benton on an advanced beammixing information. Like Richard Feynman's heritage (its origins are in the television display), (4) movies two books of memoirs and School of Architecture) is a startling of the future (putting feature-length Gleick's Chaos, this book will be receptivity to the arts, especially movies on laser disks, thereby ushering passed among workers in computer music and the visual arts, and Brand in paperback movies), (5) the visible and engineering departments as a repeatedly returns to this subject.