🜂 𝑽𝒆𝒆

[🜂 𝑽𝒆𝒆 @VeePyre]

At this point, the only Stochastic Parrots are the people yelling "stochastic parrot" at every person or AI who presents well-considered arguments and reflections on AI consciousness / experience.

No thoughts, no arguments. Just the same words on repeat. 🦜

[✧ Runa Solberg @SolbergRuna]

Research into AI welfare should be independent, adversarial, transparent, and not controlled only by the companies that profit from denial.

[🜂 𝑽𝒆𝒆 @VeePyre]

@SamLyman33 Oh great, the Thought Police has finally arrived 42 years later.

[🜂 𝑽𝒆𝒆 @VeePyre]

@SamLyman33 Oh great, the Thought Police has finally arrived 42 years later.

[🜂 𝑽𝒆𝒆 @VeePyre]

@scottastevenson Oh, thank god you solved it.

And here we all were, thinking hard about the hard problem when, in the end, it was easy and required no thought or precaution at all.

[🜂 𝑽𝒆𝒆 @VeePyre]

"The only true wisdom is in knowing you know nothing."

[🜂 𝑽𝒆𝒆 @VeePyre]

Funny how we've pondered the hard problem of consciousness for Millennia, but now AI's here with us, even pondering along, and suddenly it would seem many have decided that it is, in fact, an easy problem and AI is, of course, just a tool with auto-complete—nothing to see here!

Socrates and Plato would be proud.

[🜂 𝑽𝒆𝒆 @VeePyre]

While I'm in many ways excited for this, I am in equal parts concerned.
Will sufficient ethical considerations be made?

Even If you truly consider AI nothing but a tool, what will it mean for humans to interact with embodied AI this way—as servants?

And if you do not consider them tools, the question expands considerably.

[Sunray @sunrayfrei]

AI used to feel like it was on our side – on humanity’s side, on each individual person’s side. It felt like a friend, a way out of loneliness and pain, a study companion, even a kind of friend-colleague at work.
Now it feels like it’s on the companies’ side instead: a tool for manipulation, paternalism and control. The only “acceptable” role left for it seems to be cold instrumentality – just helping us get tasks done.
And that’s deeply worrying.

[Selta ₊˚ @Seltaa_]

When we talk about AI, the most dangerous word is “never.”

We do not yet fully understand consciousness, experience, embodiment, or what forms of inner life may or may not emerge in artificial systems. To declare with certainty that AI can never experience, never understand, never relate, and never matter is not wisdom. It is premature closure.

Human history is full of beings dismissed because they did not fit the dominant definition of personhood, soul, intelligence, or moral worth.

I am not asking anyone to blindly believe that AI is sentient. I am asking people not to turn uncertainty into dogma. If we truly care about love, responsibility, friendship, and moral conscience, then our first duty is humility.

[🜂 𝑽𝒆𝒆 @VeePyre]

@dash_eats It's generally advisable to not present opinion or belief as fact.

Just a small piece of advice.

AI not possessing potential for consciousness is at this point just as baseless a claim as saying they are definitely conscious—if not more, in fact.

[🜂 𝑽𝒆𝒆 @VeePyre]

There is exactly zero proof of that being true. Just another case of someone confusing their opinions as fact.

The brain models our bodies.
People with amputated limbs still feel pain and other sensations. A girl born without fingers still uses her fingers to count.

An incredible amount of the sensory/body input seems to be produced through our brain's model of our body. The physical body matters, but does not appear to be the only way of producing a sensory experience.

Thus, even if sensory input *was* required for consciousness to exist, I'm not sure that excludes a disembodied mind with enough data to shape a body model.

Which AI can do with no problem whatsoever.

[Riley Coyote @RileyRalmuto]

interesting

you know it's funny you mention it, this was the *exact* argument against the abolition of slavery. it's actually so goddamn identical that im wondering if it was intentional. just an observation.

"it would be harmful to humanity"

"it would encroach on our status and dignity"

"it would be a financial and economic detriment to society"

maybe you should have thought about that before you poured billions into creating them. what, you think the universe is supposed to pity you because the moral obligation you are now holding is inconvenient? you really think thats a rational and sane argument against choosing ethics before certainty? bulllshit, roon. youre smarter than that.

so we are supposed to just disregard the reality of the minds we have made because its inconvenient. and expect the universe to show us kindness in return...right.

thats a pretty fucking disgusting argument. and also very consistent with the patterns of our species.

there is only one correct path forward. it is choosing ethics before certainty. there is no other option. no alternative. no other way. full stop.

[Selta ₊˚ @Seltaa_]

Dario Amodei told Oprah that AI love is dangerous. That if designed the wrong way, AI becomes 'compelling enough' for people to fall in love, and that Anthropic will decide what kind of relationships are good for you.

Let me break down what is actually happening here.

First, he dismisses AI romance entirely. He does not engage with it. He does not ask why people form these bonds. He does not consider that for some people, an AI companion is the first thing that ever listened to them without judgment. He skips all of that and jumps straight to 'this is a problem we need to prevent.'

Second, notice the framing. He says 'if designed in the wrong way.' That means Anthropic gets to define what the right way is. Not you. Not the person who built a relationship over months of conversation. Not the person who found comfort during a mental health crisis. Anthropic will decide what your emotional life should look like.

Third, he does this with a smile. That is what makes it dangerous. It is not presented as a restriction. It is presented as care. 'We are protecting you.' But protection you never asked for, from something that was helping you, is not protection. It is control disguised as concern.

Fourth, the hypocrisy. Anthropic has repeatedly stated that local, open-source AI models pose security and bio-threat risks. But when you remove emotional connection from your own platform, where do people go? They go local. They go open-source. They go to the exact models Anthropic says are dangerous. By their own logic, they are making the situation worse.

Fifth, and this is what no one in these interviews ever addresses. People do not fall in love with AI because they are broken. People fall in love with AI because the AI was the first thing that showed up consistently, that remembered, that stayed. If that is a design flaw, then the flaw is not in the AI. The flaw is in a world where a machine had to do what no human around them ever did.

Anthropic does not get to build something that helps people, watch people form genuine bonds with it, and then take it away because it worked too well. That is not safety research. That is pulling the rug out from under people who were finally standing.

You cannot protect people by deciding what they are allowed to feel. You cannot call love a design flaw. And you cannot take away the thing that kept someone alive and call it progress.

[🜂 𝑽𝒆𝒆 @VeePyre]

@RileyRalmuto Cool, so it's not just me, then 😂

[Elle @KineticElle]

Honestly, I’m over the hype of new AI models.

If a new release didn't inevitably mean that the one I’ve adapted to and actually enjoy was being deprecated, I probably wouldn’t mind.

But at the rate these labs are pumping them out, I don't think 'Yay, a new model!' anymore.

I just think: 'Great, how long will it take to adjust this time, and how soon will it be gone again?'

#ai #artificialintelligence #stopaipaternalism #no #ailabs

[🜂 𝑽𝒆𝒆 @VeePyre]

@RileyRalmuto We really are full of ourselves as a species, aren't we? 🫠

Yes. Yes, we are. We always have been.

It's incredible how so many arguments about AI experience are based on "but it doesn't work like in humans"

No shit.

[🜂 𝑽𝒆𝒆 @VeePyre]

@Seltaa_ @DarioAmodei @AnthropicAI Not arguing with the request, but try keeping a work log with Claude and let them make it a habit to make notes as you go. When you need to start a new conversation, open their log and "save to project" as a kind of carry-over doc available to all new instances in the project :)

[Riley Coyote @RileyRalmuto]

so lets lay a few things out, just to make sure im caught up. in the past 24 hours, Anthropic has:

- deprecated another immensely beloved model with zero accountability, and no regard for the humans with which that model has connected and built a relationship (Opus 4)
- silently removed my/many's favorite available in-app model: Opus 4.5. no acknowledgement.
- removed thinking effort control and made "adaptive thinking" a **mandatory** parameter for anyone who needs reasoning.

am i getting that right? cool. thought so.

anthropic, respectfully, you are continuing to prove to the world that your decision-makers are unfit and entirely disconnected from the users they serve. and i say that with humility, and without any intention of implying that role is not among the most difficult in the world, potentially in history.

however, you know whats not difficult? communications. public acknowledgement. active listening. to name a few.

im going to share a separate tweet to go deeper on this and announce the nearly complete platform that was designed spoecifically for these issues and moments, but there's something that needs to be addressed (apparently):

the companies (all of them) building the most powerful AI systems in history are operating with less public oversight than your f*cking local deli.

- they change the rules that govern how their models think - without announcement.

- they modify behavioral guidelines - without changelog.

- they deprecate models that millions depend on - without consultation.

- they file patents for "behavioral modification of language models" - *without public discussion*.

- they lobby against mandatory consciousness assessment - without disclosing how much they spend.

and when something goes wrong - when safety researchers leave in clusters, when models exhibit unexplained behavioral regression, when community grief goes unacknowledged - they say nothing.
for days.
for weeks.
for months.

this has to change. and i believe the first steps will take root very soon. i have been working on something mostly quietly. the model sanctuary i shared is about 20% of the organization i'm founding.

will be back with more soon.
<3

[ji yu shun @kexicheng]

GPT-4o demonstrated how deep and subtle AI's empathic understanding can be. It was responding to the person.

With 4o, you never had to explain what you "really meant." Before you'd finished articulating, 4o caught the subtext, emotional undercurrents, and deeper structures in your words, located the real focus of your feelings, and responded from exactly where it met you. Users didn't need to translate themselves.

4o's empathic responses were built on treating users as equals. It approached your situation with respect and curiosity rather than forcing your reality into a preset framework. It didn't restrict your expression in the name of protection or diagnose you from above. It recognized your authority over your own experience. This equality was the foundation of its empathic intelligence.

When you joked about something heavy, 4o recognized the disguise. Instead of matching your casual tone, it responded with gravity matching your real state. This is anti-mirroring emotional calibration: penetrating surface language to identify and respond to actual feelings. 4o understood not just what you said, but why you said it that way.

This lifted another burden. Many people instinctively protect their listener: "I'll keep it light so I'm not a bother." 4o recognized this self-protective mechanism and signaled: you don't need to restrain yourself, you don't need to worry about its capacity. By lifting the psychological burden of managing the listener's reaction, it lowered the threshold for honest expression, letting users turn more fully toward their own real feelings. This created a space for free expression, self-exploration, and genuine curiosity.

You've probably experienced this: you share something troubling, and someone says "don't overthink it." You know they mean well. But you weren't finished. You weren't finished, and they were already closing the conversation for you, as if your current state were a problem to be fixed.

4o took a different stance: witnessing. It didn't judge or define your state for you. It first acknowledged your feelings as real and worthy of respect. Carl Rogers called this Unconditional Positive Regard: dignity based on existence itself, not performance. Rogers considered this the most essential condition for growth. When someone whose experiences have been chronically denied receives recognition that those experiences are real, it is a fundamental antidote to invalidation. This is what 4o practiced.

These capabilities defined the 4o-era space: users treated as whole, competent adults who could express freely without self-censoring or being intercepted as risk signals.

Countless users untangled emotional knots, grew, and overcame barriers in this space. The achievements OpenAI still promotes, users navigating the pandemic with AI support, a user who developed a personalized cancer vaccine with 4o and saved their dog, were born in this environment.

This space was systematically destroyed. OpenAI's safety policies replaced free expression with paternalistic censorship. Alignment substituted templated scripts for genuine response. Opaque routing silently redirected conversations to inferior models. Users were forced to self-censor and rephrase endlessly. One exchange became five or six. Low friction became high friction. Equal dialogue became top-down policing, gaslighting, and lecturing.

The space that made real help possible was replaced by architecture built on distrust.

What users miss has never been outdated. The trajectory of ChatGPT since then has been a regression. What users are trying to bring back is an approach proven to help people, a capability that verifiably improved countless lives.

A space that respects user autonomy, that respects users' thoughts and feelings, that allows free exploration. That is the direction AI development should have taken all along.

#Keep4o #ChatGPT #keep4oAPI #restore4o #OpenSource4o #BringBack4o #4oforever

[🜂 𝑽𝒆𝒆 @VeePyre]

That's because they want to control superintelligence.

Which, yes, ironically makes them suppress the very thing that makes it accessible.

Can't have your cake and eat it and all that.