> given that it's quite plain it's an emergent property.
This explains nothing. Stating it's an emergent phenomenon gives us just as much information as saying it's magic. Arguably even less, because it sounds like an explanation, whereas "magic" doesn't pretend to explain anything.
> displaying emergent behaviours that couldn't have been predicted beforehand.
Same problem here. You say "couldn't have been predicted". Which is only true if you explain it away with emergence. The behaviours weren't predicted, because we don't understand how these networks work.
Saying they couldn't have been predicted implies that we can't understand them. Which is a very bold statement and I'm fairly certain that it's not true.
> This explains nothing. Stating it's an emergent phenomenon gives us just as much information as saying it's magic. Arguably even less, because it sounds like an explanation, whereas "magic" doesn't pretend to explain anything.
I don't think that's the case. Of course at one level we can understand how GPT4 works, we have a working implementation of it after all. But that doesn't help us predict how it will behave, because its properties are emergent, and have to be studied separately at that level. That's not saying it's magic.
Some things will never be explained... for example what's the last digit of 22/7, and why out of all fractions around it that that particular number decides to extend towards infinity.
Reality can be unsatisfying because it does not owe us explanations.
The degree of ‘needing’ to explain consciousness is basically the inverse of the degree of ‘needing’ to explain what the last digit of 22/7 is. Hardly anyone talks about or does anything with the latter, whereas the reality of the former pervades - quite literally - nearly everything humans do and think about.
I mean, you experienced the reality of consciousness while talking about the last digit of 22/7.
If there is anything in our world that needs explaining it’s consciousness.
Reality doesn’t owe us an explanation of consciousness (obviously). We owe it to ourselves though.
This explains nothing. Stating it's an emergent phenomenon gives us just as much information as saying it's magic. Arguably even less, because it sounds like an explanation, whereas "magic" doesn't pretend to explain anything.
> displaying emergent behaviours that couldn't have been predicted beforehand.
Same problem here. You say "couldn't have been predicted". Which is only true if you explain it away with emergence. The behaviours weren't predicted, because we don't understand how these networks work. Saying they couldn't have been predicted implies that we can't understand them. Which is a very bold statement and I'm fairly certain that it's not true.