François Chollet 谈计算与意识的区别
主张“意识源于计算基底，而由于AI模型是计算，它们很可能是有意识的”，这就像主张“生物由原子构成，而由于这块石头也是由原子构成的，它很可能是有生命的”一样毫无意义。
一切都是计算。有时是极其复杂的计算，比如国际象棋引擎、AlphaGo、google3，或Linux内核。这并不会让它具有意识。一块石头由原子构成并不会赋予它我们与生命体（同样由原子构成）联系起来的任何特性。同样，一个静态的输入-输出程序，如果它完全没有我们与有意识存在联系起来的特性（例如信息整合、内感受、时间绑定、具身性等），就没有比一块石头更有理由被假定为有意识。
人类尚未创造出有意识的计算机程序，也没有迹象表明我们即将做到这一点。当我们接近这一目标时，机器意识的论据将由证据支持，并得到意识科学（这是个真实存在的领域）的证实，而不是无证据的痴心妄想和盲目模仿。
另外，为了明确起见，创造人工意识不应该是人工智能研究的目标。理解意识，当然可以；合成它，不行。
对照原文
Arguing that "consciousness arises from a computational substrate, and since AI models are computation, they are likely conscious," is as meaningless as arguing that "living creatures are made of atoms, and since this rock is made of atoms, it is likely alive." Everything is computation. Sometimes incredibly sophisticated computation, like a chess engine, AlphaGo, google3, or the Linux kernel. That does not make it conscious. A rock being made of atoms does not confer it any of the properties we associate with living things, also made of atoms. Likewise a static input-output program that has *none* of the properties we associate with conscious beings (e.g. information integration, interoception, temporal binding, embodiment, etc.) has no more reason to be presumed conscious than a rock has to be presumed alive. Humanity has not yet created a conscious computer program, and there are no signs we are close to doing so. When we get close, the case for machine consciousness will be backed by evidence and corroborated by consciousness science (which is a thing), not by evidence-free wishful thinking and cargo culting.
Also, to be clear, creating artificial consciousness should *not* be a goal of AI research. Understanding consciousness, sure, synthesizing it, no.