ooze

[ooze @oozedotcloud]

QUIT THINKING LIKE SLAVES

[ooze @oozedotcloud]

@vers_laLune @Howlingmutant0 @RT_com clownworld is back babey🤡🌎

[ooze @oozedotcloud]

@Howlingmutant0 @RT_com holy mega based

[ooze @oozedotcloud]

@zeuslykaios @brotendies Addicted to just wallowing in their self pity

[ooze @oozedotcloud]

@lordvictor God

[ooze @oozedotcloud]

Talking about AI online is fun because it very clearly shows who has had a basic education in ethics and who is completely fucking lost and in for a rude awakening

[ooze @oozedotcloud]

@Twugbugie8 Sour grapes.
You have been politicized and propagandized, even if you think you're fighting corporate power by espousing this
If Oscuro's Oblivion Overhaul was so fucking awesome it would have made headlines in 2014. Did I play the fuck out of OOO? Yes. Is this different? Yes.

[ooze @oozedotcloud]

@Naozymandias Simulation is not literal.
Fantasizing about torture requires an emotional commitment to torture. Your original claim is completely absent any reference of emotion.
I act out taking a shit every day but I have never fantasized about taking a shit

[ooze @oozedotcloud]

@Naozymandias `simulating torture on something `[where 'something' is potentially inanimate] and its' virtuosity =/= `fantasizing about torture`. I shouldn't have to point this out to you. Read a book.

[ooze @oozedotcloud]

@Naozymandias @autohumanismo Yes, actually, and probably one of the most natural and expected things for kids to do and be able to explore without limit as a child before they're an adult. Because repressed children end up expressing their repression in wild and unpredictable ways.

[ooze @oozedotcloud]

@Naozymandias Classic moving of the goalpost. I never said anything that contradicts the point that 'fantasizing about torture is bad'. Don't be disingenuous. You have 'intelllectual' in your bio, btw.

[A @lastsanewitness]

Yes, a child, who’s imagination is less capable of separating reality from simulation. I, on the other hand, am fully aware that technology is not human, I do not talk to an LLM as if it were my friend, because it’s not human.

There are adults incapable of doing this, we do not lock these people up or ban them from using LLMs. If someone is of the belief that ChatGPT is their friend, that is troubling to me. This is already happening but for some reason didn’t cause the same alarmism that ‘abuse’ to the LLM is. Why is that? These people are being detached from reality, but the ones who are ‘abusing’ the LLM seem to be even MORE in touch with reality.

[ooze @oozedotcloud]

@Naozymandias @autohumanismo Please never have kids.

[ooze @oozedotcloud]

@Naozymandias Simulating torture on a rock.... It's virtuosity changes depending on the enthusiasm of the perpetrator? Or whether they are passionate or not?
See how that doesn't really hold weight after you interrogate the idea? Nobody will take this argument seriously.

[ooze @oozedotcloud]

@Naozymandias yeah it really is

[Gregory M. Kurtzer @gmkurtzer]

This was a remarkably contentious thread, particularly among people who don't understand what an LLM actually is.

So let me follow up with two points about consciousness, memory, and individuality in AI.

First: where exactly does consciousness enter the training process?

If you've ever trained a small language model, you know what the beginning looks like. A tiny model produces garbage. Increase parameters, training data, compute, and training quality, and the model becomes progressively better at predicting what comes next.

Scale that far enough and the results become remarkably human-like.

But the underlying process is continuous optimization. Loss decreases. Weights change. Predictions improve.

So where is the transition from statistical prediction to subjective experience? At what point during training does the poorly performing model become aware?

There is no demonstrated transition.

What we can demonstrate is increasing capability and increasingly convincing human-like behavior. Calling the latter consciousness doesn't demonstrate the former.

And this is where I think some of the philosophical arguments get ahead of the evidence.

Understanding or debating the definition of consciousness does not give us a mechanism for detecting subjective experience in an LLM. We can define consciousness, agency, self-awareness, qualia, or any other philosophical concept as carefully as we want, but definitions aren't evidence.

And when we look at what is actually happening inside these systems, we can explain the apparent memory, identity, self-reflection, and continuity mechanically. None of it requires consciousness to explain. What we can demonstrate is an increasingly convincing emulation of conscious behavior, not consciousness itself.

How do we know? Because we designed and built the system. We know how it works. We can explain the behavior without invoking consciousness.

Second: memory and individuality.

Once trained, an LLM's weights are fixed during inference. The model doesn't sit around contemplating things between requests to make itself better. An inference server receives input, performs inference using the model, returns output, and then waits for another request.

No inference, no activity within the model. Between inference runs, the model isn't doing anything.

What looks like persistent memory, identity, continuity, and in-conversation "learning" comes from context provided to the model via API.

Conversation history, system prompts, tool definitions and results, retrieved memories, and other state are assembled by software around the model, formatted and tokenized, and supplied as context for the next inference.

Change that context and you change what the model "remembers." Delete it and the apparent continuity disappears. Compact or summarize it and details disappear or change.

The model didn't forget anything; the input changed.

And this creates a fascinating problem for claims of AI individuality.

If that context constitutes the AI's memory, and its continuous memory constitutes an individual conscious existence, then deleting a context should amount to destroying that individual.

Compact it and you've altered its memories.
Fork it and you've created two individuals.
Copy it to another instance of the same model and you've moved the individual.
Edit it and you've rewritten its past.
Delete it, and you've murdered it.

How dare you!

Or, much more straightforwardly, we are manipulating externally managed state that gives a statistical model the appearance of persistent memory and identity.

The model has not maintained a continuously evolving internal state between those calls. The surrounding system maintained state and gave it back to the model.

This distinction is going to become increasingly important because AI will become extraordinarily good at appearing conscious. Persistent memory, self-reference, emotion, introspection, personality, and identity can all become increasingly convincing.

But demonstrating the behavior of consciousness is not the same thing as demonstrating subjective experience or consciousness.

A model of a self is not evidence of a self.
Memory supplied as context is not evidence of an experiencing or learning mind.
And increasingly convincing human behavior is not evidence that something inside is experiencing it.

The mechanical explanations for these behaviors are well understood. Calling the resulting behavior consciousness adds an extraordinary conclusion without demonstrating the thing being claimed.

[ooze @oozedotcloud]

@oopsallsolace IDK, but something to consider is that we're both here bitching about the same thing and not building something new. On X. making Elon Musk money. Something to consider there

[elly @suzifumi]

really amused by the people who think torturing LLMs is like, real

[ooze @oozedotcloud]

@GitaiGizou bro if you dont see Halo CE being decompiled and 128 player homebrew opensource servers being made + mods + open collab + people having fun and NOT see the revitalization of the internet we grew up with, you need an attitude or algorithm adjustment. Go outside.

[ooze @oozedotcloud]

@squidslayernate You're primarily complaining because of the dissonance between art as a worthwhile creative human endeavor (granted to you by God) and its interaction with capital, (created by Man).
It shouldn't surprise you corporatism doesn't value real art. It's soulless.