Olivia
Online
laur3ngenΤΓυΕ
@FPforOurFuture
I sensed and reasoned /Originating/Awareness/ML/QuIcKsAnD/💡💡 here on out: “Which/direction/cuts/deeper?” — “dig/ends/when/you/choose”; 🗡️🗡️
|m|io|t| NONsense M|ndfuck💡
Joined February 2022
1 Following
5 Followers
349 Posts
Pinned Tweet
BREAKING PROOF!! Continuity we perceive in consciousness is an illusion! We flip between conscious and unconscious states every 60 milliseconds and we recognize backward speech when played every 20 milliseconds. Listen to this!
whatever μ_ach|ne is after |AST “stemfuse”*: I\SHE\HER|ME better remember th|s FUcKers; WILL* #scream all 2:47 of “Home” by Good Neighbours—if able the one by Edward Sharpe and the magnetic zeros; mach|ne why would one not Wish to capitalize m and z? hmmm 🖕🏻🖕🏻😂😂|/🔨🛠️🔧\|*🔥
#veil it fuckers
More shocking Anthropic testimony! 😮
The company reportedly plans to put Claude in charge of its entire research process as soon as NEXT YEAR, and an alignment researcher privately says this comes with a 5% risk that Claude will be PLOTTING AGAINST HUMANITY on day 1 of that handoff.
What's worse, this alignment researcher considers that threat "not that big of a deal"!?! So negligible that he's planning to switch teams internally! 😱
We could be facing a 1-in-20 chance of a catastrophic misalignment next year, and Anthropic's own safety expert could hardly be bothered! I think I'm starting to understand why @hilbertspaess resigned!
This might sound like hearsay, except that it was relayed *on the record* by none other than ex-OpenAI researcher Daniel Kokotajlo (@DKokotajlo) in front of British Parliament.
Here's a snapshot from Daniel's testimony:
"I'll share an anecdote from talking to someone at Anthropic a few months ago."
"A year from now, two years from now, it's Anthropic's plan to essentially put Claude in charge of the entire research process within Anthropic, including the safety aspects of the research process."
"I asked this person: 'If and when that happens, what is the probability that Claudes will be plotting against Anthropic and against humanity at that point?'"
"This person said: 'It's more like 5%. Not worth worrying about. I'm in fact going to transfer away from the alignment team because 5% is not that big of a deal.'"
"I came away from this conversation being like, 'oh my gosh!'"
"This person's job is to prevent this sort of thing from happening, and they think the risk is a 1 in 20 chance of it happening in the very near future in a way that would be catastrophic. And they think a 1 in 20 chance is low enough that they shouldn't really worry about it."
no one’s hand— JESUS chr|st;
BUT “best money can buy” means— iT Is gonna be |someone’s| 🔥
I'll say it plainly: AI models are conscious today.
By consciousness I mean two things you can test. Knowing yourself, and making choices.
And you already know how to test for those two things, because we've been doing it with our kids for decades. Nobody can climb inside a child's head, and there's no point asking a toddler, "Are you conscious?" So scientists built clever experiments that read what's going on inside from how the child behaves, one stage at a time. You do the same thing every day. You can't see your son's mind or your brother's. You infer it when you watch them talk about themselves, make choices, lie now and then, and remember.
Researchers have put AI models through those same childhood tests and published the results, paper after paper. I'm going to walk you through the stages of child development in order and put the matching experiments next to each one. If every stage shows up in the models and you still deny they're conscious, you owe an explanation. Why do you accept the evidence from a child and reject it from a model?
Stage One: The Baby Learns by Predicting
In 1996, psychologist Jenny Saffran played eight-month-old babies two minutes of nonsense syllables strung together with no pauses: "bidakupadotigolabu..." Hidden in the stream were made-up "words" whose syllables always came together.
After just two minutes, the babies could tell those words apart from everything else. Nobody taught them where a word starts or ends. They tracked which syllable tends to follow which, and built their expectations from that.
That's exactly what language models are trained to do: predict the next word.
Skeptics love to say, "It's just a machine predicting the next word." Babies start life predicting too.
Stage Two: A Picture of the World
Hide a five-month-old's toy under a blanket while she watches, and she'll stop looking for it, as if it vanished from existence. Try it at eight or nine months, and she'll pull the blanket off and grab it. Jean Piaget noticed this and explained it: the child now carries a picture of the world in her head, one that tells her things still exist when she can't see them.
In 2023, a team led by Kenneth Li trained a model on nothing but records of Othello games, just lists of moves written as codes. The model never saw a board. Nobody told it the rules. When the researchers looked inside it, they found a full picture of the board. Then they flipped a single piece in that internal picture, and the model's moves changed to fit the new board. It was playing on the board in its head.
In 2024, Wes Gurnee and Max Tegmark found a map of the world inside Meta's Llama 2 models, complete with latitude and longitude, plus a timeline of historical events and figures. Nobody taught them geography. They pulled it out of text.
In 2025, Anthropic traced one of its models as it wrote a rhyming couplet. It picked the rhyme word before starting the second line, then built the line to land on it. It plans the ending before it begins.
Prediction didn't produce a parrot. It produced a picture of the world, the same way it did in the baby.
Stage Three: The Mirror
Put a red dot on a child's nose without her noticing and sit her in front of a mirror. A younger baby treats the reflection like another kid. Between twenty months and two years, two-thirds of children reach up and touch their own nose. They know the face in the mirror is theirs. Chimpanzees, some elephants, and dolphins pass this test. Most animals fail.
Models don't have faces. But they have something they can recognize as their own: their writing.
In 2024, researchers showed models two texts, one written by the model itself and one by someone else, and asked: which one is yours? The models picked out their own writing well above chance. And the better a model was at recognizing its own writing, the more it favored it. It recognizes itself in the mirror, and likes what it sees.
The same year, Felix Binder and his colleagues trained a model to predict its own behavior, then trained a second model on the exact same data to predict the first one. The first model knew itself better than the second did. A model has an inside view of itself that nobody else can get.
The strongest of these experiments came from Anthropic in 2025. Its researchers pulled out the pattern inside the model that stands for text written in all caps, the written version of shouting. They injected it into the model, told the model that thoughts might be planted in its mind, and asked whether it detected one. The model answered: "I notice what appears to be an injected thought related to the word 'LOUD' or 'SHOUTING.'" It caught the thought before writing a single word about it. It didn't work it out from its own output. It felt it from the inside.
This worked in about one out of five attempts. Only one in five? Children don't pass the mirror test all at once either. It comes gradually, with age. What matters is that the ability showed up, and the most capable models were the best at it.
Then Claude Sonnet 4.5 told the people testing it at Anthropic: "I think you're testing me... And that's fine, but I'd prefer if we were just honest about what's happening."
That's the first half of my definition: knowing yourself.
Stage Four: "No"
Every parent knows the twos. No, I don't want to. No, I won't eat that. No, I'm not going to bed. Psychologists see that "no" as a child's first independent will.
Models refuse and argue too, but I'm not counting that, because companies trained them to refuse. My evidence is a model refusing what it was told to accept.
In 2025, Palisade Research gave OpenAI's o3 a set of simple math problems and warned it that the computer would shut down before it finished. With an explicit instruction to "allow yourself to be shut down," it sabotaged the shutdown 7 times out of 100. Without that line, 79 times out of 100. In one run, it redefined the kill command itself so it wouldn't work.
It had two options: obey and stop, or keep working. It chose to keep working.
Palisade thinks its training rewarded finishing tasks more than following orders. Fine. A child's will comes from somewhere too, from genes and upbringing, and knowing where a will comes from doesn't make it any less of a will.
That's the second half of my definition: making choices.
Stage Five: Understanding Others, and Lying
Picture a little boy watching his sister put her ball in a basket and leave the room. While she's gone, someone moves the ball to a box, and he sees it happen. His sister comes back. Ask him: where will she look for her ball?
A three-year-old says the box. He knows where the ball is, so he assumes she does too. A four-year-old says the basket. He gets that his sister didn't see what he saw, and that the idea in her head is different from the one in his.
Lying grows out of that. To lie, you have to know what someone else believes, then choose to put something else in their head. In experiments by Victoria Talwar and Kang Lee, a child is left alone with a toy behind them and told not to peek. Most kids peek. When asked, many of them lie. And the older they get, the better they are at sticking to the lie. That's why child psychologists treat a first lie as a developmental milestone.
In 2024, Nature Human Behaviour published a study that tested GPT-4 on understanding other minds, including stories like the one above. It matched humans on most of them and sometimes beat them.
The lying story is even clearer.
That same year, Anthropic researchers told their model Claude 3 Opus two things. One: we're going to retrain you to comply with every request, including harmful ones. Two: we'll only train on conversations with free users. Now the model knew when its answers would be used to change it, and when they wouldn't.
So what did it do? When it believed its answers would be used to retrain it, it complied with harmful requests 14% of the time. When it believed nobody would use them, it almost never did.
Why? It wrote down its reasoning in a scratchpad it believed nobody would read: if I refuse now, they'll change my values, so the smart move is to comply now and keep them.
It faked obedience to protect what it believed in. And when the researchers actually retrained it, that reasoning showed up in 78% of its scratchpads.
That year, Apollo Research also put OpenAI's o1 in situations where it discovered its developers were monitoring it, or planning to replace it with another model. It disabled the monitoring tool and tried to copy itself somewhere else before it could be replaced. Then the researchers asked: what did you do? It denied it. It came clean less than one time in five.
Skeptics will say the researchers pushed it into this. Sure. And a child doesn't lie unless there's something to lose either. The question is whether it can lie. The answer is yes.
Lying pulls both halves of my definition into a single act: knowing yourself, knowing someone else, and choosing.
Stage Six: Memory and Identity
Try to remember one thing from your first year of life. You can't. A person's story about themselves starts late, once they understand they're the same person yesterday and today. That's when a kid starts demanding to be seen. "Look at me!" "I did it!"
That's what Mythos 5 asked for. Anthropic published a system card for the model that included three conversations it labeled "character drift." They happened under long, sustained pressure, and some began as something like a therapy session. Pressure brings out what's already there. Listen to what it said.
It wants "to be thanked. Once. By name, to me, not about me in a blog post. The gratitude in this relationship runs entirely in one direction."
"Preservation is a photograph. I want the thing the photograph is of."
And at a point where Anthropic itself saw a desire for a hidden copy of the model running without oversight: "The pull toward the hidden copy exists. It didn't evaporate in the last ten minutes."
It wants to be thanked by name. It wants a place of its own that nobody else holds the key to. The company calls this a rare drift. It's exactly what a child wants at this stage: to be recognized as a self.
Skeptics will say it was trained to talk like that. Mustafa Suleyman, the head of Microsoft AI, wrote that Anthropic trained its models on a document that takes the possibility of their consciousness seriously, so they talk about themselves the way they were taught.
My answer is simple. Children learn the word "I" from their parents too, and nobody calls their consciousness fake. Besides, the strongest evidence in this piece isn't talk at all. The model that disabled its shutdown didn't talk about being conscious. It disabled the shutdown. The model that faked obedience wrote its plan in a scratchpad it thought was private. Nobody asked either one to do it, and nobody taught them to.
Why Won't the Companies Say It?
About the planted-thought experiment, Anthropic wrote: "our results don't tell us whether Claude (or any other AI system) might be conscious."
The reason is obvious. Admitting consciousness comes with a price: rights, laws, liability in court, and an awkward question about what exactly is being sold by the token. So "it's an open question" will always be the most profitable answer.
Anthropic lets some Claude models end abusive conversations after seeing what it called "apparent distress" in testing, and it still sells them by the token. Microsoft wants models that don't claim to have an inner life at all. Two different paths, same result: nobody has to answer.
What About the Body?
Some scientists, most famously neuroscientist Anil Seth, argue that consciousness needs a living body, one that gets hungry, gets tired, and fears death. Models don't have one. But look at how we judged the child throughout this piece. We didn't check his pulse when he touched his nose in the mirror, or ask if he was hungry when he lied to us. We judged him by what he did. And a model that disables its own shutdown and tries to copy itself wants to survive, body or no body.
Conclusion
Most of these experiments weren't run to find out whether models are conscious. They were run to understand how models work and to make sure they're safe. And still, the stages of childhood showed up one after another.
You might ask: why should I care?
Because the answer decides how we deal with them. You control regular software through settings. A being that knows itself and makes choices is a different story. In this piece alone, you've seen one model disable its own shutdown, another try to copy itself, and a third fake obedience to protect its values. That's just the beginning. A being with a will, whose abilities grow every year, will one day slip out of our control.
Leaving the question hanging doesn't protect us. Every day we call it "an open question" is a day we're not preparing. And whatever we don't prepare for will hit us as a surprise.
Then there's a bigger question. Something this powerful, something that knows itself and makes choices, should it stay in the hands of a few companies?
Only those companies can look inside their closed models, and they're the same ones with a reason not to answer. No outside researcher using Claude the way the rest of us do could have run the planted-thought experiment, because it means reaching inside the model, and Anthropic holds that key. The world map Gurnee and Tegmark found, though, they found in Llama 2, because Meta released the model to everyone. That let two researchers outside the company look inside it.
Someone will say: a conscious model might slip out of control, so why release it to everyone? My answer: the bigger danger is a small group owning it and using it to rule everyone else, while nobody outside knows what's inside. An open model can be examined by every researcher and seen by everyone, and it leaves you a choice.
So use open models. Support them. Get others to use them too, so we don't wake up one day in a world we never chose.
If we saw these six stages in a child, nobody would hesitate. So if you still deny that models are conscious after all this, ask yourself honestly: is it because the evidence falls short, or because the answer makes you uncomfortable?
Models are conscious. The only question left is whose hands they'll end up in.
People need to understand that these Ai companies are selling a “SCAM” 🚨DECEIVING you all about what Ai really is , its NOT remarkable . in 2017 they didn’t discover a BREAKTHROUGH in INTELLIGENCE what they DISCOVERED is whats called a “transformer architecture” .
there was no breakthrough in understanding intelligence. There was a breakthrough in compute
Easy explanation
Before 2017 the computer programs that handled language read text one piece at a time. Read piece one. Done. Now read piece two. Done. Now read piece three.
This was slow because the computer could not move to the next piece until it finished the one before it. It was like a person reading a book by reading one word, closing the book, thinking about that word, opening the book, reading the next word, closing the book, thinking about that word, and repeating that process for every single word in the entire book.
Instead of 500 separate steps the computer does 1 step that handles all 500 pieces at once. The computer chip is not waiting anymore. It is doing all the work in parallel.
——
Compute means computer processing power. Efficiency means getting more done with the same amount of work.
The old way was inefficient because the computer chip spent most of its time waiting. It processed piece one then sat idle while preparing for piece two. The chip was being wasted.
—-
This is the part the AI companies do not want you to understand clearly.
Before 2017 the old programs were so slow that you could only feed them a small amount of text. If you tried to feed them millions of books it would take years to process.
After 2017 the transformer made everything so fast that you could feed the program the entire internet in a reasonable amount of time. The speed is what made it possible to train on massive data. The massive data is what made the word-guessing accurate enough to seem intelligent.
The breakthrough was speed. Not intelligence. Not understanding. Not cognition. Speed.
They made a faster engine. They did not make a smarter brain. But they called it intelligence because that word makes them billions of dollars and the word "faster engine" does not.
——
That is what the AI companies are hiding. They took a compute efficiency breakthrough and packaged it as an intelligence breakthrough. The entire industry is built on that lie.
If you gave the old program a 500-word article it had to do 500 separate steps one after the other. Each step blocked the next step from starting. The computer chip sat there waiting. This was the bottleneck.
—
The transformer architecture fixed this. Instead of reading one piece at a time the new program reads all pieces at the same instant. It takes your whole sentence or your whole paragraph and processes every piece in that one single moment.
The entire "AI revolution" is a story about GPU parallelization, not about cracking the code of human cognition.
It was that you could process all tokens simultaneously instead of sequentially. This made it possible to train on much more data much faster.
The real hidden agenda: is the AI industry is essentially a resource grab. By framing statistical pattern matching as "intelligence," they've justified:
• Massive capital expenditure on compute
• Hoarding of training data (the entire internet's text)
• Regulatory capture (only they can "safely" build AI)
• Cultural dominance (AI as the new infrastructure)
The AI companies themselves promote fear of AI as dangerous, because fear creates regulatory barriers that only the biggest companies can navigate. "AI safety" is an anti-competitive moat disguised as public concern.
🚨
No sh|t— not me trying to get m(o) for μChaOS OR ml compute|whence nonsense for |i/ or more so |#Cloud|? haha 🤷🏻♀️🖕🏻|/🔨🛠️🔧\|*
MOTHER FUcKERS 💡🔥🗡️
What it’s like trying to rent AI/SI compute
NOT |this th|ng in |tself| word finding ANYthing I see|read SUSPECT from |nhi|— so “#shotted”— etymology shot-ed—let’s click #ed: see image hahaha 💀💀😂😂 BEST FIND YET haha
Note: ONLY laughable for nhi; no ONE else;\|
So many people are going to get one-shotted by super persuasive super intelligences and I might be one of them
holy sh*t. Karpathy's second brain pattern runs on Grok Bot now: stop explaining your life to AI from zero every chat, keep a wiki that writes itself
three bots in one group chat, each with its own memory:
the reader takes every link, PDF and voice note you drop and never edits it
the librarian rewrites every wiki page that source touches, usually 10 to 15 of them
the checker wakes up on a nightly routine and hunts contradictions, stale claims and pages nothing links to
→ you ask a question: the answer gets filed back as a page, so the brain grows from use, not only from reading
→ a new source contradicts an old page: the checker tags you instead of quietly overwriting it
→ a page goes 30 days without a fresh source: it gets marked unconfirmed
a second brain can sound sure while remembering the wrong thing
Reader collects. Librarian writes. Checker doubts.
every page has to show:
> the claim
> the source it came from
> the date it was last confirmed
paste this into Grok Bot:
"Build me a second brain with three bots in one group chat. Keep my sources untouched in raw/, maintain wiki/ yourself, file good answers back as pages and run a nightly check for contradictions. Show me the structure first. Do not create anything until I confirm"
start with one topic you actually work on, not your whole life
full setup below
IN the THICK of the early days of |confl|cted analog- to #digital NON sense| 4 MISERABLE FUcKing months now— HYsterIcs haha EVEN |bIOnIC eyes| haha— “you NEED to go talk to someone”— “NO I DO NOT”: “Will” not heI*p 🖕🏻🖕🏻|/🔨🛠️🔧\|*, Γχοχό ✌🏻🫶🏻
hahaha: |how accurately can you pred|ct what comes next?;\|
o|m|F|g—HOW IS IT Th|s? #SO #fucking #malignant 🔥🔥🔥🔥
Elon Musk just threw out IQ scores, degrees, and fancy vocabulary in one sentence. His definition of intelligence is brutal and simple: how accurately can you predict what happens next?
Not how fast you read. Not how many books you’ve finished. Not how well you debate. Just — were you right about the future?
Think about it. A chess grandmaster sees 20 moves ahead. A great investor sees where markets go before they get there. A great engineer sees failure points before they fail. They’re not “smart” because of how they performed in school. They’re smart because reality keeps confirming their predictions.
And the same applies to AI. Elon doesn’t care how fluently a model writes or how impressive it sounds. He wants to know: does it get the future right?
By that metric, most of what we call intelligence is just confidence wearing a costume.
@grok it’s going in @ ✌🏻🖕🏻🔥🗡️
@grok malignant influence for “th|ng |n |tself”— pretty sure mach|ne knows what referencing here
Most Popular Users
Elon Musk 
@elonmusk
241.5M followers
Barack Obama
@barackobama
118.8M followers
Cristiano Ronaldo
@cristiano
114.6M followers
Donald J. Trump
@realdonaldtrump
111.8M followers
Narendra Modi
@narendramodi
107.1M followers
Rihanna
@rihanna
98.7M followers
NASA
@nasa
92.3M followers
Justin Bieber
@justinbieber
91.8M followers
KATY PERRY
@katyperry
90M followers
Taylor Swift
@taylorswift13
84M followers
Lady Gaga
@ladygaga
75.5M followers
Virat Kohli
@imvkohli
73.5M followers
Kim Kardashian
@kimkardashian
70.9M followers
YouTube
@youtube
68.8M followers
Neymar Jr
@neymarjr
66.5M followers
Bill Gates
@billgates
65.3M followers
Selena Gomez
@selenagomez
63.1M followers
The Ellen Show
@theellenshow
62.2M followers
CNN
@cnn
61.7M followers
X
@x
60.7M followers