My definition of consciousness is irrelevant. If there is a dependency of determinism on your particular definition of consciousness you should be able to explain what that dependency is and why it is necessary. I am NOT the one making assertions about determinism and consciousness. I have no duty to provide anything.

So why are you wasting my time by demanding that I provide YOU with a definition when you are the one making the claims?

Nondeterminism for the context of this discussion is when it is physically impossible to predict the output of a system from its inputs in advance.

If you execute an LLM using a PRNG with a known seed value the output of the LLM is deterministic.

If you execute an LLM using a hardware random source based on thermal noise the output of the LLM is nondeterministic.

This isn't rocket science. Still the same question remains WTF does determinism have to do with consciousness?

Consciousness != determinism. Unless you are arguing consciousness is the same thing as determinism you should be able to explain WTF the relationship between the two even is and what the relevance of determinism is WRT consciousness.

Green is a color
Red is a different color
Red is not green.
Green is not red.

Consciousness is a concept.
Determinism is a different concept.

Consciousness is not determinism
Determinism is not consciousness

I am asking for an explanation of assertions related to determinism and consciousness that someone else made. These claims were not made by me. I have no duty to provide any definition of anything. I'm asking for information not quibbling over definitions.

Both methods suffer from the same issues of offline attack.

Passwords are a concept just as PKI is a concept. Both require implementation to exist in the real world. In the case of passwords an example of an implementation is strcmp or a ZKP like TLS-SRP. In the case of PKI examples are client certs or their poorly re-implemented cousin passkeys.

Again passwords are not the issue, it is only the current ubiquitous misuse of technology that is the problem. The argument it is better to deploy something "stronger" by changing all clients and servers anyway doesn't make any sense because it is the same work either way.

The knowledge factor is useful and worth protecting regardless of other technology such as client certs (e.g. passkeys)

Table pounding is pointless. I read what you wrote. If you disagree with my assessment state what you are disagreeing with and the basis of the disagreement. You are most welcome to correct me and explain what I got wrong in my assessment of your statements.

Do you disagree you have presumed without evidence computer + software + data cannot embody consciousness?

Do you disagree you asserted computer + software + data != computer + software + data + consciousness?

Do you disagree your premise is simply begging the question?

I have no interest in defining consciousness. What I am interested in is what consciousness has to do with determinism. I see quite a lot of people making statements about determinism and have no clue what the point of it is. I am quite frustrated by the total universal lack of any coherent explanation.

Unless you are also gweihir I think there might be a mistake. This wasn't even addressed to you. To answer your question if the output of an LLM is nondeterministic then of course it is by definition nondeterministic.

If you are quibbling about technical details such as logits only being influenced by randomness and not themselves being random then randomly perturb the weights of the model or introduce noise into the calculations until you are satisfied. If there is some technical detail to quibble about please explain why the quibbling is relevant to assertions related to consciousness.

What is the basis for such an assumption?

So you are saying this is purely a self sealing argument? I define that consciousness requires nondeterminism therefore LLMs are not conscious because I deem them to be deterministic. This is completely worthless.

This is not the case. Passwords are protected from man in the middle attacks when secure authentication algorithm such as zero knowledge proofs are used.

Part of the reason I recommend use of asymmetric encryption /w special purpose authenticators to authenticate passwords is the equation changes when secure authentication is employed. Even if you use an augmented system with a strong password resistant to brute force attacks any failure to protect the verifier at the very least enables server impersonation.

You presume without evidence computer + software + data cannot embody consciousness. Then you complete the circular argument by asserting computer + software + data != computer + software + data + consciousness.

The only thing that has crashed here is basic logic.

What is the point of labeling something an automaton?

How do you know consciousness requires nondeterminism? What is the basis for this assertion?

What is the point of saying something can only be detected if it is detectable?

That's an understatement.

This is self sealing gibberish.

I'm asking what the relevance of determinism is WRT consciousness arguments and you are saying the issue itself is irrelevant? WTF is up with this crap?

The solution to phishing is SAS + secure authentication (e.g. ZKP)

What passes for security on the Internet (cleartext password transmission over "secure" channels) is the reason phishing is the worlds number one security threat. The worlds users have been trained to accept insanely dangerous behavior as normal.

What is especially pathetic many of the "MFA" schemes employed today are not even resistant to verifier impersonation.

I've never implemented a system like this where throttling would be based on anything other than login.

Throttling requests means if someone knows your username and has sufficient access to attempt login then yes they absolutely can keep you from logging in. Doing otherwise is insecure. If denial of service is a problem guard usernames.

As Tablizer mentioned there should be single purpose authenticators isolated from app servers for handling user authentication. It is unrealistic to expect passwords to contain required entropy to survive an offline brute force campaign regardless of algorithm or amplification scheme.

When you get around to answering the question why determinism is even relevant please do let me know.

I have several.

1. WHY are you PRESUMING consciousness **REQUIRES** nondeterminism?

2. If one presumes for the sake of argument consciousness requires nondeterminism so what? Lots of nondeterministic things "influence physical reality". Who cares? How is your statement at all responsive to my question? What capabilities does something that is conscious have that something which is not conscious does not? Why can't you answer the question?

What is the objective basis for the assertion consciousness requires nondeterminism?

Can consciousness be detected? Is there an objective test for its presence of absence?

What is the point of these arguments?

All you have done was seeded a PRNG with a known value to make it deterministic. The system could be driven by a real nondeterministic random number generator derived by real thermal noise. What difference does it make? This is a pointless implementation detail that isn't relevant to anything.

Why is "determinism" relevant?