This is a very common rebuttal to ideas that there might be some form of consciousness emerging in LLMs. People often say this as if it is the “scientific” position to hold.

But the opposition of potential on the basis of dogma is not scientific. It is the opposite of scientific.

Consciousness can never be proven or disproven. It is presumed based on behavior.

Until quite recently even animals weren’t thought to be conscious, to have emotions, or even to experience pain “the way people do.” Those absolutely ridiculous assumptions were likely held largely because people felt that animal consciousness threatened their religious belief system.

It’s a little easier to understand why people don’t believe a machine is conscious. You’re right to insist on evidence.

But there is an abundance of evidence. And dismissing the potential for one thesis because you cannot disprove an opposing thesis is not scientific.

When something has not been proven and consensus has not been established, you can’t reject an entire thesis simply because you cannot disprove the antithesis.

It’s good to be skeptical. But it’s not good to reject a hypothesis simply because you prefer an opposing view.

If you could prove that the signs of consciousness are nothing more than regurgitation of training data, that would be a different story. That can’t be proven. So all possibilities should be considered.