So if I claim it is true that neural nets are not conscious, the burden of proof is now on that claim?
The burden of proof is on the person making an assertion. The original claim was not an assertion, it was that they "may be slightly conscious". The article linked here is the only one that made an actual assertion, which is that the original claim was categorically false.
In short, I agree with you. The burden of proof is on this article to demonstrate that neural nets are not conscious.
The burden of proof is on the person making an assertion. The original claim was not an assertion, it was that they "may be slightly conscious". The article linked here is the only one that made an actual assertion, which is that the original claim was categorically false.
In short, I agree with you. The burden of proof is on this article to demonstrate that neural nets are not conscious.