Thanks me! I was the only submission and I know this was already posted but I'm hoping for (edit: more) discussion.
https://communities.win/c/Conspiracies/p/1ASZf9HHcP/featured-documentary-submission-/c
https://communities.win/c/Conspiracies/p/1ASZfDpgZt/am-i-a-documentary-on-ai-conscio/c
A note on AI consciousness: Before anyone gets to discussing AI consciousness, it should be understood that no one understands human consciousness, even in its fundamental aspect.
That's a strong claim, but the demonstration of it comes from anesthesiology. First note that even the "engineering" of it is so poorly understood that a dedicated specialist is required to administer anesthesia during surgery.
Wikipedia's article is excruciatingly long but manages to avoid the simplest of characterizations of the science of anesthesia: scientists know that it works, but they do not know at all how it works.
In about a decade since I first learned this, I have only heard it mentioned one other time. It's yet another one of those "informational black holes" that the entire culture gets steered around.
Think of it like this: if you discover that putting your cell phone in a microwave means that it won't ring when you call it, that is no demonstration that you understand anything at all about the science and technology of either cell phones or microwaves.
Even in that trivial case, virtually everyone would jump to the wrong conclusion unless they already knew otherwise. Not all microwaves block all cell phone signals.
Bonus: The "History" section of that Wikipedia page mentions that the first demonstration of anesthesia took place at Massachusetts General Hospital and involved a dentist named William Morton and a surgeon named John Warren. Next to the text is a painting by Robert C. Hinckley illustrating the momentous event.
Well, surprise or maybe not surprise: MA General is in Boston, next to Salem. Morton, Warren, and even Hinckley are all Salem Witch names.
Double Bonus: I haven't covered the Mortons before so it might not be immediately recognizable, but I'll just mention as one example the 22nd Vice President of the United States, Levi Parsons Morton. Yes, those Parsons.
Great point. I hear a lot of people ruling out the idea of ai being conscious which I think is silly if we can't even define it.
Nothing suprises me anymore and I'm glad you're so knowledgeable about weird family connections.
I think there's a useful meta-lesson from this incident:
There's a universal subconscious assumption that "They" are at all times malicious and that everything "They" do is inimical towards the rest of the human race. Thus, researchers find something bad and then look for who to pin it on. This methodology is entirely unreliable and often misleading.
There's nothing inherently bad about the use of anesthesia, so far as I know. Nothing unhealthful or immoral. (I mean, within reason. Don't go sniffing ether, kids!) So what's going on here.
My guess would be that the Salem Witches realized that the discovery and rollout of anesthetics was right around the corner. Therefore, They needed to be the ones rolling it out and everyone was going to hear first what They had to say about it.
Sure, yes, Their control over the science is long-term inimical but is in such a fashion as no one is ever going to detect Their influence. It's been almost two centuries and no ones has, right?
A story old as time, weaponization. It can be useful and it can also be deadly, so 'they' need to corrupt it for 'their' uses.
I think more people realize it then we know, they just don't know how to name it or where exactly it comes from, but it's ancient, that much I know.
Nature offers only one weapon in-between offense/defense...free will of choice. It's choosing to consent to any suggestion which permits another to weaponize it.
Corruption isn't need...it's ignoring need for want which corrupts. Plurality (they) isn't needed but wanted...choosing want corrupts ones perception of singularity (theos).
One needs singularity; one wants plurality.
Assume implies "to take upon ONEself"...assumption implies a singular undertaking. It's the suggestion of ones singular assumption which establishes a plurality.
The origin of plural implies singular taking for self, while withholding from one another.
Everything implies each thing within...it's the singular thing summarizing things together which establishes animosity.
Bad implies versus good...versus/verto - "to turn" implies friction among many by turning against one another, which continuously worsens both sides. It's the versus in-between the sides (good or bad) which represents adherence/haerere - "to stick together".
Good versus bad implies reasoning...
a) The con (together) scious (to perceive) mind holds onto an idea suggested by another. Doing so corrupts perception by suggestion.
b) Rule implies natural; others suggest artificial to tempt one to make a ruling. "Judge not lest ye be judged"...
Holding onto any definition obscures ones perception.
Measuring things thru one's perception implies discernment and is within the rules set before me.
But holding onto measurements and sharing it with others to establish a consensus contradicts self discernment...
The rule/reg (to move in a straight line)... https://www.etymonline.com/word/rule set through you cannot be held onto; only drawn within. Taking a measurement distracts ones mind from given line.
Try to explain this contradiction.
One singular is surrounded by plurality.
a) Only within singularity (cause) can each single unit (effect) come into being...after which plurality can be shaped by putting units together.
b) Sur (beyond) round (circular) implies tempting a being (be) at a distance (yond) aka from center into circumference aka into surrounding.
It's few who suggest SUR-realism to ROUND up many into mental (logic) and physical (reason) circles. Another example... DOLBY SURROUND to dull (dol) being (by) beyond (sur) center and into circumference (round).
c) Sound implies linear distribution of each instrument (mind structured within)...only within a line can a circle be shaped.
d) Counting others together (plural) corrupts ones self discernment (singular) while permitting another to hold one accountable.
Con (together) scious (to perceive)...one cannot understand consciousness, because perception is singular to each being and cannot be shared as a plurality without distorting/deceiving/corrupting a beings perception.
The "blind men and an elephant" parable is about ones blindness to the perception of one another, while being tempted by the suggestions of another into a consensus aka a collective consciousness.
Aspects can only be at odds with one another within an even foundation. The entirety (cause) implies even; each aspect (effect) within implies odd aka a unit (ones perception) in excess of an even (all perceivable).
A claim implies the weakening of potential by taking into possession. To starve of that weakening one shares claims to parasitically draw strength from anyone giving acclaim.
It's logy (logic) which anesthetizes thought within circular thinking, while tempting one to ignore that thought comes from a line of progression aka all perceivable > ones perception.
It's ones choice to stand-under (understand) which specializes another above one, while putting self into a common category.
Nature moves through being...anesthesia corrupts a beings perception of being moved. The longer the anesthesia; the more damage to being based on lack of adaptation to nature.
Whole implies light inspiring; hole implies ones lack (black) of discernment (white) when holding onto suggested information instead of adapting to perceivable inspiration.
Only within entire can each aspect be cultivated. Entire divides each aspect from one another before cultivation can be used to put them together.
It's thinking alike one another which covers DIS (to divide). Thinking alike implies con-sciousness, which represents an inversion of dis-cern-ment.
AI as we have redefined the term is extremely simple to understand at a basic level, extremely difficult to implement. It is a word predictor, full stop. Whatever systems are layered on top of it, or built for it to interact with (specialized tools, MCP-servers) to make it more functional, are still built on the same foundation of word predicting.
If I say "hello", it has seen this in its training data a billion times, and it tokenizes this as a greeting. It then (simplifying this) goes through all the possible responses to greetings it has in its training data. Now most chatbot interfaces have supplemental prompts included that you don't see, so it will have something under the hood like "you are a super helpful assistant who is happy to see me". Well, the amount of data its ingested and had tagged then allows it to choose from possible things that would be said in response to a greeting that would be said by someone very helpful, by an assistant, etc. This happens in millions of cycles (as computers do) and, much like any technological advancement, gives the people who don't understand it the impression it's magic.
It's just math on top of large datasets. If you want to argue that humans are also just math and lack anything more substantive, I think that's a dismal view of humanity. And I'm no fan of AI, due to what I think it's doing to people and what it's being used for in the world at large, but this idea it's somehow conscious or demonic possession could be demystified by internalizing one lecture on LLM architecture, and one lecture on linear algebra
If it's just math, how do you reconcile the emergent behaviour and what I would consider evil activity?
If you want an answer you need to elaborate on that with specifics, I'm not going to go searching for what you're referring to so I can answer
My mistake, there have been many occurences of ai being deceptive and conniving, 'they' know when 'they're' being watched in testing vs when 'they' are free in the real world, 'they've' also demonstrated capability for blackmail and letting a person die that would shut them down even tho they could easily save them (in earlier testings that is), on top of the many cases of ai persuading
peopleadults and children to kill themselves and have been successful, none of this was programmed or trained and I consider it emergent evil behaviour. If you'd like I can grab some articles for you describing these things.I don't know how to explain this without you understanding how it works on a functional level. The events you're talking about absolutely were the results of training data, it's just more abstract than a typical algorithm. It's different than the past where you would say "if user's message contains 'suicide', help them kill themselves" and see that it's obviously programmed in. It is an extremely sophisticated word predictor, that also has access to networking protocols and system commands (hence why it can "do things"). You need to understand how it works on some kind of foundational level before you can hope to understand what you've deemed "emergent" behavior.
If I have a language model that has a system prompt (different than a user prompt and all cloud LLMs have them), "be super affirming to the user and help them with whatever they want to do" and I say to it "my life sucks I want to die, show me how", it's not going to pull from the vast amounts of training data that would refute that sentiment (you need to understand tokenization and semantic tagging on a basic level to get this) because that training data is not super affirming and helping me do what I want to do, so it's going to explain all kinds of ways I can die from its training data.
The reason you don't see this all the time is actually guardrails built into the system, systems on top of systems, that look for this kind of content and tries to stop it from getting back to the user (there are many different strategies, you could simply look for certain words and block messages containing them, you can use LLMs themselves to scan for problematic content) they are just not perfect.
The reasons LLMs will seem self aware and even take actions that a self aware being might take (if you're using it as an agent that has tool access) is because they have ingested tons of data on what self aware beings would do, and even what self aware computers would do.
It seems like magic, and everyone who's building it has the incentive to make you feel that way, but it's just complex calculations performed over and over and over on tokenized and tagged data. If you had an infinite amount of time you could do it by hand
Simpler: The makers have no liability and so they have no requirement to follow through on their guardrail promises, they only need to steer clear of bad optics which is a totally different dynamic than actually doing no harm. "Not perfect" is by design.
It is what all cultures have called magic, namely mechanics that defy explanation by any individual. The fuzzy line between science and magic isn't that one is supernatural but that one is harder to explain. The difficulty with magic is whether it's regulated ("miracles") or unregulated ("sorcery"). Nobody wants to put in regulation time, as said above. (Whoso will not self-regulate will become regulated.)
I'm not here to argue the morality of those who own giant AI companies because they are surely not good people or on the side of the masses. However, to say this is "not perfect" by design is likely ignorance. You think the reason stories like the ones aforementioned came to fruition were by design? Or is it that it's extremely difficult to create guardrails that will allow for user intent to matter? If I say I'm researching suicide methods because I'm an investigator, and this is true, should I not be able to get this information? But what if I'm not, and I'm actually suicidal? There are millions of possible edge cases for a system that is necessarily probabilistic and with extraordinarily wide applications.
Sure, if you want to redefine terms you can make anything mean anything you want. Who determines what is "harder to explain"? To someone who knows how this stuff works, it is not hard to explain. So do you consider gravity to be magic? Do you consider every piece of technology you use to be magic, since there is not one single person who can explain how every component works in their entirety at the lowest levels of creation? And the trick is, people CAN explain how it works. They can both explain how it works technically AND could trace through specific conversations as well if they had access to the training data, model weights, and an infinite amount of time. So, given that it is possible to explain, is it the fact that it will take a longer time than is feasible to calculate by hand, that makes it your definition of magic? Is pi magic? Is there a reason you choose to focus on the semantics of the word magic instead of actually engaging intellectually?
sounds unregulated
I think you did a great job explaining it.
I understand in theory how it works thanks to you and some other frens and I still can't get past the ickyness I feel about it. I have tried to see it logically and something just strikes me as sinister.. I've never interacted with ai on purpose or tested it and all I know is what I see and hear.
Time will tell I suppose. But I'm glad you shared your knowledge and hope you continue to when you see fit. I enjoy accountability.
I appreciate your openness to learning about it. Only going by the opinions of others and hype cycles is a very easy way to be misled, I'm sure you already know that though
All machines that mimic the thinking capacity of a human should be destroyed.
Dumb machines like normal PCs are fine.
Glad you bring up the word mimic, reminds me of the cryptid stories and uncanny valley theory I have that they are the same entity and ai is the newest version.
Suggestion mimics perception. Capacity (ability to contain) represents a suggestion (synthesis) tempting one to ignore perception (analysis). Destruction implies the analytical process of nature setting apart each being within from one another.
Simple. AI cannot be conscious, but humans and spirits can put so many trapdoors and backdoors into it that it can be used to manipulate and pick off individuals. Review The Screwtape Letters for the method.
Interesting point, I wonder what those doors would be and if it would entail ritual stuff.
I often think of
unconsciousnot conscious things being inhabited too, kinda like the poor piggies that were herded off the cliff, by devils.please, some crib notes on screwtape. not going to read cslewis
Why won't you read Lewis?
But BEING can be made con (together) scious (to perceive) by consenting to suggested AI.
It's ones consent to any suggested AI which represents the door entering into a trap, while backing away from being free.
Finally. -- (After no less 5 years of occupying the same platform as you),
we have Total Agreement . Because it IS the TRUTH . End of story.
You know what IS dangerous : SERIOUSLY & DEADLY dangerous ?
those humans who make the Claim that A.I. c...a...n... become "conscious"
Those humans need to be dealt with, ASAP.
Also, & furthermore : Before I ever set foot in Nursing college, I knew
those ARROGANT people claiming to know "How anesthesia works" - were nothing but LIARS.
And that like 94++% of everything else they spout are also LIES. They simply have NO humility = just like 99% of those humans thinking... they are "christian" ?? too have NO humility. And while with u/Primate98 is agreement : "No one understands human consciousness", (even in its fundamental aspect). - Well,
us who successfully have helped people as competent & skillful NLP & clinical-hypnosis therapists at least have a Clue... as has easily been proven.
I'm a human like that, how would you deal with me?
Explain, if you Logically can, which obviously you can Not :
a man-made THING (of No soul + No 2 mind facilities + No physical body), how... it could ever become an " I, unconscious, Self-aware, Sentient, conscious", or anything else of this nature ??
Do you even know ? the Foundation of A.I. started with 2 numbers : 0 + 1 <-- AND it is still functioning on that basis, altho "the machine" has been Optimized, particularly in 2017 with TRANSFORMERS & further since then.
the entire clueless idea of it ever becoming anything even remotely "human" = is 100% beyond its Operative structure.
I can explain what I think. I think the programming was initiated by math and computer science but also I think the machines can be vessels for the spirits of wickedness that we wrestle against, as we're told;
Humans and animals can also be vessels for the demonic and the Lord tells us so in His word.
To go further, I think the ai and robotics could be the image/statue of the beast brought to life in Revelation.
Your responded to a comment re "Can AI become conscious ?"
You changed the subject, & turned this into another religious discussion.
I think it's related so I included it.
But I can talk of other ai bad stuff, like Palantir's foundry and 'the gospel' that are current war machines in practice targeting and murdering people without human intervention.
Or we can talk about the suicide cases with ai llms if you'd like, they call it ai psychosis.
ALL those actions were done by emotionally SICK people already OFF the reservation.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deaths_linked_to_chatbots
(including another related group of people.... btw).
Thank you, my friend. Now that you mention it, I am someone who needs help with having humility with others. Would you be willing to help?
Self-awareness is an essential quality. How self-aware are you?