Jeff Wise
@jeffwise.bsky.social
Science journalist specializing in aviation & technology, featured in Netflix doc "MH370: The Plane that Disappeared," host of the "Finding MH370" podcast.
More: https://linktr.ee/jeffwise
More: https://linktr.ee/jeffwise
Great point. Do you think it still looks like A86 05, currently scanning for historical wrecks in the San Bernardino Strait in the Philippines, is the most likely vessel to carry out the search?
December 3, 2025 at 12:01 PM
Great point. Do you think it still looks like A86 05, currently scanning for historical wrecks in the San Bernardino Strait in the Philippines, is the most likely vessel to carry out the search?
David Chalmers recently won a 25-year bet that the "easy" problem of consciousness wouldn't be solved by now. He has no vested interest in AI being successful.
The question of whether an AI could be conscious, and what that would entail, has nothing at all to do with the success of the business.
The question of whether an AI could be conscious, and what that would entail, has nothing at all to do with the success of the business.
November 29, 2025 at 12:32 AM
David Chalmers recently won a 25-year bet that the "easy" problem of consciousness wouldn't be solved by now. He has no vested interest in AI being successful.
The question of whether an AI could be conscious, and what that would entail, has nothing at all to do with the success of the business.
The question of whether an AI could be conscious, and what that would entail, has nothing at all to do with the success of the business.
The essence of the article could be boiled down into this portion of his quote: "People who are confident that they are aren't conscious shouldn't be."
In questions as murky as this, a little intellectual humility goes a long way.
In questions as murky as this, a little intellectual humility goes a long way.
November 26, 2025 at 8:27 PM
The essence of the article could be boiled down into this portion of his quote: "People who are confident that they are aren't conscious shouldn't be."
In questions as murky as this, a little intellectual humility goes a long way.
In questions as murky as this, a little intellectual humility goes a long way.
You cannot seriously say that David Chalmers is some random crank.
November 26, 2025 at 6:46 PM
You cannot seriously say that David Chalmers is some random crank.
Did you read the article?
November 26, 2025 at 6:44 PM
Did you read the article?
Except this magic does exit -- in your own brain. It's the result of neural wiring. What is it about that neural wiring that creates that subjective experience? We don't know. We also don't know exactly what's going on inside LLMs. So anyone who says it's a trivial question is wrong.
November 25, 2025 at 10:45 PM
Except this magic does exit -- in your own brain. It's the result of neural wiring. What is it about that neural wiring that creates that subjective experience? We don't know. We also don't know exactly what's going on inside LLMs. So anyone who says it's a trivial question is wrong.
Have you read the article? It's not claiming that the computer is a person. It's explaining why the question is a lot more subtle and interesting than die-hards on either side of the question seem to understand.
November 25, 2025 at 10:06 PM
Have you read the article? It's not claiming that the computer is a person. It's explaining why the question is a lot more subtle and interesting than die-hards on either side of the question seem to understand.
David Chalmers is not a crank.
November 25, 2025 at 10:01 PM
David Chalmers is not a crank.
Oh, because you know more than world-renowned experts in AI consciousness?
November 25, 2025 at 3:07 PM
Oh, because you know more than world-renowned experts in AI consciousness?