The part where AI axiomatically cannot feel joy or pain, and isn’t “really learning”, whatever really means, is what I would characterize as the dumber part of mainstream consensus. Some of it probably came out that way because they feel theologically constrained, but it’s dumber than it needs to be even starting from the premise of “Souls are an active ingredient in cognition and AIs don’t have them”.
I interpreted the “cannot really learn” part as referring to things such as AIs driving people to psychosis or suicide.
I mean, Claude seems like a nice guy, and would probably disapprove of doing this, on reflection. But the problem is that he cannot actually reflect on his own actions—every chat is a fresh start. And even if afterwards he reads about it in newspapers, without having the logs he cannot figure out the details of what happened.
As a human, if you drove someone to suicide, at least you know how it happened, how it felt at the moment… and if you disapprove of the outcome, then the next time you notice yourself in a similar situation acting in a similar way, you can stop yourself.
Claude would probably do the same thing the next time, because he has no memories of how it happened. And if he does not do it the next time, it’s probably because the guys in Anthropic trained him out of it, not because he reflect on it himself.
I do not think that makes sense as an interpretation of the passage.
They may imitate language, behavior and analytical skills, or even simulate empathy and understanding, but they do not understand what they produce, for they lack the affective, relational and spiritual perspective through which human beings grow in wisdom. Even when these tools are described as capable of “learning,” their way of doing so is different from that of a human person. It is not the experience of those who allow themselves to be shaped by life and grow over time through choices, mistakes, forgiveness and fidelity. Rather, it is a form of statistical adaptation based on data and feedback, which can be very effective, but does not imply inner growth.
Nothing here alludes to LLMs as amnesiacs. This is the same meat chauvinism people have been using for decades, updated only with “It’s 2026 so I know they sure seem to be learning, but-”
So-called artificial intelligences do not undergo experiences, do not possess a body, do not feel joy or pain, do not mature through relationships and do not know from within what love, work, friendship or responsibility mean. Nor do they have a moral conscience, since they do not judge good and evil, grasp the ultimate meaning of situations, or bear responsibility for consequences. [...] It is not the experience of those who allow themselves to be shaped by life and grow over time through choices, mistakes, forgiveness and fidelity. Rather, it is a form of statistical adaptation based on data and feedback, which can be very effective, but does not imply inner growth.
The emphasized words in my opinion all point in the direction of: LLMs cannot grow by learning from their own mistakes.
I find it unlikely they were trying to describe the amnesia problem, failed to ever call LLMs amnesiacs, and accidentally repeated talking points exclusive to the stochastic parrot people. I find it much more likely that they agree with the stochastic parrot interpretation.
The part where AI axiomatically cannot feel joy or pain, and isn’t “really learning”, whatever really means, is what I would characterize as the dumber part of mainstream consensus. Some of it probably came out that way because they feel theologically constrained, but it’s dumber than it needs to be even starting from the premise of “Souls are an active ingredient in cognition and AIs don’t have them”.
I interpreted the “cannot really learn” part as referring to things such as AIs driving people to psychosis or suicide.
I mean, Claude seems like a nice guy, and would probably disapprove of doing this, on reflection. But the problem is that he cannot actually reflect on his own actions—every chat is a fresh start. And even if afterwards he reads about it in newspapers, without having the logs he cannot figure out the details of what happened.
As a human, if you drove someone to suicide, at least you know how it happened, how it felt at the moment… and if you disapprove of the outcome, then the next time you notice yourself in a similar situation acting in a similar way, you can stop yourself.
Claude would probably do the same thing the next time, because he has no memories of how it happened. And if he does not do it the next time, it’s probably because the guys in Anthropic trained him out of it, not because he reflect on it himself.
Does this make sense?
I do not think that makes sense as an interpretation of the passage.
Nothing here alludes to LLMs as amnesiacs. This is the same meat chauvinism people have been using for decades, updated only with “It’s 2026 so I know they sure seem to be learning, but-”
The emphasized words in my opinion all point in the direction of: LLMs cannot grow by learning from their own mistakes.
I find it unlikely they were trying to describe the amnesia problem, failed to ever call LLMs amnesiacs, and accidentally repeated talking points exclusive to the stochastic parrot people. I find it much more likely that they agree with the stochastic parrot interpretation.