Malik

Political Philosophy, Embodied Subjectivity, TESCREAL, AI, Habermas | he/him

[Malik @ApexWizardking]

@kvallier The argument of embodiment still easily stands

[Malik @ApexWizardking]

@Benthamsbulldog @NathanJRobinson Yes it is. Because they are not embodied

[Malik @ApexWizardking]

@vishalmisra It’s also not about being reactive or proactive. It’s about the biological nature of being and the subsequent precariousness that is the differentia specifica

[Malik @ApexWizardking]

@MelMitchell1 What are the models working with? Is it language? Please stop playing semantic games

[Malik @ApexWizardking]

“Talk to your muse” that’s insane language for AI animism

[amrit @amritwt]

this is like steve jobs unveiling the iphone

[amrit @amritwt]

this is like steve jobs unveiling the iphone

[APStylebook @APStylebook]

Artificial intelligence systems do not think, feel, want or understand. Avoid language that gives them human characteristics. This is called anthropomorphizing, when we ascribe human traits, emotions or behaviors to non-human things, such as animals or inanimate objects.
Instead, explain what a system does, how well it performs, who built it and who could be affected by it.
https://t.co/UrgRobU97b

[Scientific American @sciam]

In yet another sign of AI’s surging dominance over human minds, OpenAI recently claimed to solve one of math’s biggest questions: the Navier-Stokes problem. But now three mathematicians have showed OpenAI’s work dodges the question rather than solving it.
https://t.co/5Fbf4R460T

[Malik @ApexWizardking]

@henrytdowling @chipgpt Okay so you’re just conceding your argument. What a stupid post by AI-enthusiasts

[Malik @ApexWizardking]

@Skoorbkaz This post was written by AI lol

[Malik @ApexWizardking]

@wooshkim @AndyMasley @sckimbriel It depends on what is meant by understand. Understand as in the example of the wittgensteinian lion? Or understand in the sense that it has a Taylorian background as a biological being? If you mean the latter, at least something would be understood.

[Remmelt Ellen 🛑 @RemmeltE]

The real “long-term artificial machine risk” is the destruction of organic ecosystems we need to live.

AI Safety frustrates me, since it overlooks dynamics that have clear empirical backing.

Artificialisation of our lands is accelerating, and what fuels it is automation

1/

[Malik @ApexWizardking]

@aran_nayebi What a boring take. Your denial and cope won’t change the underlying architecture of LLMs

[Valerio Capraro @ValerioCapraro]

Let’s be clear: LLMs don’t feel pain. And they don’t deserve moral standing.

This new paper reports a series of experiments identifying pain-related representations in LLMs.

The authors also show that manipulating these representations changes behavior: some fine-tuned models select a “relief” button less often after it removes the manipulation than when it leaves it in place.

These are interesting results and the authors acknowledge that their experiments do not establish conscious experience and could instead reflect role-play.

But they also say that “pain-like states would inform debates on AI moral standing and welfare.”

And the paper has been widely shared among advocates of AI rights and moral standing.

So, let’s be very clear:

These findings do not show that LLMs experience pain.

Similarities in internal representations and behavior do not imply similarities in subjective experience.

A system can represent pain without that representation being painful.

A system can simulate rain without getting wet.

That’s it.
Don’t conflate surface similarity with deep similarity.

*
Paper in the first reply

[Malik @ApexWizardking]

@kanair What a wonder! A tech-CEO that is heavily invested in AI is talking about the feasibility of substrate AI consciousness. Boring and pure cope

[Malik @ApexWizardking]

@slimepriestess You are spending too much time around AI

[Malik @ApexWizardking]

@AndyMasley @sckimbriel It doesn’t understand because it’s not embodied and embedded. A mechanical system has to have a reason to care. AI does not

[Malik @ApexWizardking]

@AndyMasley The Chinese room is one of the most important arguments within the AI age. This is just cope

[Andrew Orlowski @AndrewOrlowski]

Damning

[jon3k @jon3k]

It's impossible to actually understand how an LLM works and genuinely believe it's conscious.

It's a bunch of vectors and multiplication. That's literally it.

"We don't know what they're doing"

lmfao yes, yes we do.