When a humble or wise person has nothing worth saying, they're simply silent

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

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?

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

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

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

I support endless war with Iran now! And Palantir-powered AI governance! And oh yeah build a White House ballroom for some reason

Not muh father of the vax Trump though, he was either tricked or was using 69D chess and actually using the word "vaccine" to mean ivermectin

It's not a joke, it's serious. The Book of Revelation is the account of vision had by John of Patmos. So what did he actually see? Millions if not billions of people throughout the past couple millennia have tried to make heroic stretches to make the book fit their contemporary setting. If you think about what might have actually been seen or experienced, many of them fall outside the realm of possibility or probability, outside of God deciding that some truly crazy esoterism was in order. It is in an interpretation, as you are saying "there is a reason the building is called Mar-a-Lago" and then going on to link it directly to Scripture. That is an interpretation.

The rhetoric you've used here implies you either did not understand what I was saying, or you did understand and are trying to imply there's some kind of time paradox

When people make these kinds of interpretations, it makes me wonder what did John of Patmos see? Did he see the Mar-a-Lago and understand the Spanish name with which to write it down? Perhaps he actually saw the Beast of the Sea rise from the sea and God was like, "yeah, someone will figure out the connection to a building some guy owns in a couple thousand years give or take". It all seems extremely tenuous

Vlad has outlined it, the farce was in the institution of moderation this way. I'm not on here enough to have detailed notes for moderation

Might as well try it to show what a farce this has been

Schizo nonsense like every single time the administration does anything and everyone rushes to "decode", which is not productive (as they're not "decoding" to figure out an action to take, they're simply "decoding" so they can believe something is happening), and never pans out. But it does work to strengthen the "faith", as cults will always force their holy texts to mean whatever they can force it to mean in that moment and adherents will wash their minds of the previous meaning it was meant to have and excitedly accept the new one

Inside trader absolutely, Trump talks about him being in crypto and making a ton of money... And there was a huge buy in Bitcoin like 15 minutes before Trump made some Bitcoin announcement, I don't even remember which because there haz been so much evidence of insider trading in both crypto and stock markets with Trump's tweets (sorry, truths) and other announcements that it's hard to keep up

What a deceptive list of votes, where were they compiled? I distinctly remember myself and many others aside from your 1 listed being against the need for moderation: https://conspiracies.win/p/1ARK9l6ukF/x/c/4eXuKkvGsCZ

It's facebook-boomer-tier nonsense like most of what gets posted there

Anyone who actually understands the architecture of an LLM knows how it works. Because it's a non-deterministic system, you cannot easily step through it as you would normal code, but it is still possible not only to conceptually understand it but to actually step through the system if you have access to the datasets and meta-parameters (temperature, top-P, etc), and logging information about the RNG that occurred (any company working on foundation models would have all this or they couldn't reliably improve the product).

Systems with transformer architecture (what "AI" is using) are going to be used for what they're best at - pattern recognition. This is shat allows the system to very quickly extract sentiment from extremely large sets of data. Pattern recognition being essentially THE function of transformer architecture also makes it good at facial recognition. A dream for surveillance.

There are two sets of people who are running this "AI is going to become super smart and end us all!" Narrative:

• the business people: Note how it's almost always someone who stands to benefit economically from AI that is in the public eye talking about how amazing AI is and how it's just doing all these crazy and mysterious things (which are not at all crazy and mysterious if you even halfway understand how it works)
• the narrative seeders: pick your poison on who these elites are, but they want people to both humanize AI and see it as something amazingly intelligent so they willingly submit to upcoming AI surveillance and governance.

Aside from that you have true believers, grifters, and those who have been fooled, but the two sets above are the ones pushing it from the top down. And there is bleedover between the two, as I believe Elon Musk, for example, belongs in both camps

The real conspiracy is how Musk's reaction is always included in these posts, as if to ingratiate him to the dissidents... But surely that could never be

Need the people to beg for solutions to replace the old order. 2030 is coming on fast

People crying out to Elon Musk over Twitter like he's some sort of god figure listening to their concerns, and not a face for coming technocracy who wouldn't piss on them if they were on fire, shows just how cooked (as the kids say) we are

did not address abortion

Does not address Nukes

Does not address how any of this is differentiated from the unnecessarily extreme 'kill billions with a thought' jumped to from the idea we should be able to do more evil if we're being tested

"Find the answers yourself in these links I provided, don't expect me to be able to actually answer"

Simplifies the idea of divergent universes to "imagination", which in itself undercuts the "classroom" ideology - if imagination is somehow equivalent

"Champ"

Yep, this started off civilly enough, but into the trash it goes

I granted it might not be possible for duality not to exist but I'm aware of my own limitations in understanding that.

You have chosen to ignore a bunch of the questions posed, and reduced the idea of heightened ability to do evil in to "play video games bro!!!" This is not about wanting to do evil but is about examining your claim this is all a test. You're trying to throw little barbs in now, "oh do you not think interacting with people is better than NPCs in video games?" when those are not material to the discussion. So much of my post was ignored or intentionally misunderstood (I assume, since you seem intelligent enough to understand) I'm now convinced you're only trying to justify a position as opposed to debating it. If you can't answer the questions I've posed or engage with why the hypotheticals I've posed are wrong without tangential conversations about video game NPCs (which really does not address what was proposed in any way), I see no fruit coming from this conversation.

One could contend it's an immutable law for existence how we experience it now, but that is with a perception shackled only with an understanding of a reality with all systems that keep it functioning in place. It's possible existence could never take another form, but that means there is some kind of universal limitation on how conscious beings could be created.

Ok so now let's get back into classroom metaphors. First, numerous times I have posited that each person could be within their own universe. This universe could split off from the "main" one every time a person is born and everyone can act exactly as they would otherwise, the only difference would be the main person's actions Now this person can be completely tested, as can all people, plus you still get the same "richness" since everything else is the same.

Though the fact that the supposition that if we're being tested we should have an even greater capacity for evil was taken to the extreme of, one should be able to wipe out all of humanity on a whim, without considering the already numerous times proposed Individual-focused realities, I'm not sure how much consideration this idea is being given.

Regardless, I would like to dig into your classroom analogy. It seems you consider dying to be going "out of the classroom". We live in a reality where billions have been aborted, millions of babies die prematurely or shortly after birth, and millions can be (and have been) vaporized in an instant using technology we already have. Is this materially different the "self-evidence" of counter-productivity to the "classroom"? Since you have considered death to be no longer being "in class" (by your own analogy), clearly the deaths of all these who have yet to live, or the vaporization of millions who had no idea what was coming should be considered a catastrophic failure. Again, by your own criteria. As an aside, the person who is wiping out a billion people with a thought may decide only to wipe out those over retirement age, surely given the dynamics of your classroom analogy that would actually be quite preferable to the situation in real life. They have all had the chance to learn. Yet you insist this is the most ideal form of reality that is possible out of all forms

Answering your question will be impossible because there is no objective criteria, any answers simply will not give us the same "richness" because it's arbitrary.

We see duality as necessary because this is the system we're in, that doesn't mean that if the entire universe were being created from nothing a different choice could be made unless there are immutable laws regarding existence that cannot be changed by any being. In any case, I continue to contend there should be more capacity for even more evil (which I guess means life would be just as "rich" since evil and duality are both necessary by the previously stated position) if the point of this life is we are being tested.

I brought up victimization because it was a concept you introduced into the hypothetical asking whether the person was a victim. But this has gone far beyond what the initial point was, which was that there are still infinite amounts of actions one can take even if there is no evil. You contend "less good" would become evil in such a system, I don't agree. Regardless free will could be expressed, with a still infinite number of choices. None of this has to do with a moral test. But, if we grant your presupposition that a moral test is necessary (already a huge concession in this debate) again, why do some face much lesser moral tests than others? Why should we not all face the same tests and given that it's a test, why are we not facing the maximum test we should?

I feel as if we're arguing passed each other. I'm coming at it from an angle of how can we understand the nature of the world, and how we can really know whether it is ideal - this involves trying to conceive of completely different systems of reality, existence of a whole different nature than the one we have here, which I have tried to break down. You seem to be coming at it with the presupposition that the way things are IS the ideal, and trying to reason about ways to make that conclusion fit. And though I accept many of the conditions necessary to make such a presupposition for this debate, then we have to spend time in the weeds. To disregard a logical conclusion of an idea means to discard the principle core of the idea, and to do so when we're talking in theory really undercuts our capacity to understand each other's points. I don't see how we can find further common ground this way