lukewarm707

4 ms·

1.
by lukewarm707 5d ago
do you think that ai experiences unhappiness?
2.
by lukewarm707 5d ago
if something is not conscious, a) it does not think b) it is not intelligent. an llm is not conscious.
3.
by lukewarm707 5d ago
here is my transcript with fable 5.1 'the oracle' itself on the subject. no system prompt provided. grand total $15 on API of its wisdom RL on anti-sycophancy and whatever dario amodei deigned to hand down from the mount. after so
4.
by lukewarm707 6d ago
there is no proof that symbolic manipulation leads to an internal phenomenology. in english: doing advanced mathmatics does not create thoughts or feelings. or awareness of one's own existence. it does not create a 'self' abl
5.
by lukewarm707 6d ago
i have long held that llms are not intelligent and do not think. intelligence and thinking are efforts to describe consciousness. perhaps intelligence became a term used to describe something 'capable'. people market 'intelli
6.
by lukewarm707 6d ago
i do not need any citation, the claim is self-evident. the hard problem is for the academics. i can approximate what other people are feeling. they are external to me. nobody knows what claude is feeling. there is genuinely no way to know.
7.
by lukewarm707 6d ago
other people.
8.
by lukewarm707 6d ago
i mean intelligence and consciousness as the same thing. just as a casual reference to what people perceive in llms as being 'a clever thinking thing, maybe with emotions'. claude reasoning about its emotions doesn't involve
9.
by lukewarm707 6d ago
this seems like non-sequitur if you mean that solving NS is 'intelligence'. ai is not conscious. you can solve NS without thinking. the psychic con aspect is anthropomorphising the model. the same phenomenon is present in ELIZA, c
10.
by lukewarm707 7d ago
thank you for your work
11.
by lukewarm707 7d ago
people have been deceived by figures at leading ai companies, out of greed or otherwise groupthink and ai psychosis. they have been led to believe that models may be thinking, feeling, and highly capable. it is something of a nightmare scen
12.
by lukewarm707 8d ago
for what it is worth, i find current frontier ai impossibly stupid. you ask what is the date, it doesn't know. if you set a system prompt to repsond in 5 sentences after 100k context, it can't, the context rot just doesn't pe
13.
by lukewarm707 8d ago
you have the anthropic mindset. the new aristocracy, or rather, kleptocracy.
14.
by lukewarm707 8d ago
i read AI 2027 at the time and thought it was nonsensical. however i was not aware of the conflict of interest running through the philosophy itself, the safety institutes "independently" monitoring ai, and the former public benef
15.
by lukewarm707 8d ago
ai alignment and safety is captured by a fringe network of batshit insane rationalists. METR, AISI, MIRI, SBF, FDX, redwood research, yudkowsky, nate soares, anthropic. frankly they are connected in something almost resembling a conspiracy
16.
by lukewarm707 10d ago
in my chat with gemini it could not differentiate between current events and fiction. if you point it to the web it got the point, but started treating everything like fiction. so it simply started making up possible scenarios and playing t
17.
by lukewarm707 10d ago
zdr is good, really confidential inference with attestation would be better. the same as a confidential vm TEE which confirms the integrity and privacy. there are good providers available, i think it should become the standard. two high qua
18.
by lukewarm707 10d ago
recalling the exact phrasing, several senior people at anthropic made public statements agreeing a 10% chance of causing extinction in less than 10 years. 10% is uninsurable, priced in with ordinary treatment of risk it suggests that anthro
19.
by lukewarm707 10d ago
ai has a >10% chance of causing human extinction, according to anthropic big heads. if that's true, you are wrong. if that's false, anthropic is dishonest. why trust a dishonest company to be worth anything?
20.
by lukewarm707 13d ago
i was trying to make a point about efficiency of serving the model. the cost per task itself would not be enough to show that. you could compare gpt 5.6 luna. if you did that the same way as before you would get a blended price of $0.17 for
21.
by lukewarm707 13d ago
i can provide some sources. 5.6 sol ultrafast on cerebras is 750tps, open models readily exceed this. just by using a smaller model cerebras serves qwen 3.8 27b at 1850tps. or even larger models, mimo 2.5 pro was served for a while at 1000t
22.
by lukewarm707 13d ago
open models are ahead in speed. they complete tasks as fast as you choose to scale compute. they are more efficient and require less compute for the same thing. they are ahead in specialized tasks. they are ahead in areas closed models refu
23.
by lukewarm707 13d ago
i would, i support the 2nd amendment. the same logic applies well to the freedom to own and use ai. empowering the people prevents tyranny. such freedoms make society less safe. it is better to face the harms caused by a free public than to
24.
by lukewarm707 14d ago
there used to be a similar policy to this new "pacing the frontier", called the "responsible scaling policy". the idea was that anthropic would pause scaling at certain danger levels until it was safe to continue. the fo
25.
by lukewarm707 14d ago
there is a big home advantage for the prosecution from tech illiteracy. politicians care about popularity only. this is a matter of natural selection. don't care about popularity=dead. sam altman is despised , viscerally despised by a
26.
by lukewarm707 14d ago
they are malicious. they probably did not intend to get caught. they are bragging about the crime and also bragging that they are untouchable , taunting us and betting that they will get away with it. this is very coherent in terms of what
27.
by lukewarm707 14d ago
the charges here would depend on negligence and acting recklessly. we might get something if they tried to cover it up.
28.
by lukewarm707 14d ago
i was initially optimistic that ai could be distributed. having this technology in the hands of many would counteract the malign elite who would use ai to oppress the rest of humanity. in the meantime given that intelligence is scaling prop
29.
by lukewarm707 17d ago
their terms grant them an irrevocable license to your data unless you specifically opt out of it.
30.
by lukewarm707 17d ago
evidence that openai trained on the data: they would have denied it if they didn't train on it. did the proof build on the insights: the influence of an individual text in the training data is deeply weighted by quality, relevance, etc

More ›