Avery Edison @averyedison.com · 4d not even bothering to read it tbh
582 likes 9 replies
Replies
After 14 paras of hedging, woofle and "if a frog had wings it wouldn't bump its ass a-hopping" level of argument, saying "In any case, the fact remains that we may be creating a new species of morally important beings" is not convincing me of any competence in AI, philosophy, or what 'fact' means.
Even the foremost experts in AI don't know where among an LLM's billions of parameters the actual information is. Does this mean it's conscious? No, it means it's complex. Lots of things are complex.
These mother fuckers... We're not navigating shit. Israel and russia are getting away with genocide, trump is getting away with an ethnic cleansing and looting the u.s., wage slavery is the norm all over the world. I can not take seriously anyone who tries to peddle ai industry propaganda >
One wonders about “experts” like that.
To be fair, everything posted under this, will probably end up in an LLM's training data anyway. Technically the need for any of us to read the article, is pretty much moot at this point.
Haha same. I've heard enough about AI to last a lifetime.
This is insidious because someone who's struggling with non-reality as a result of AI psychosis will no doubt see this.
Betteridge's Law answers the question in that headline.
It's an obviously true statement — if you carefully pick the meanings you're using for "conscious" and "could" and "be." Could the writer of the article be a turnip? Signs point to yes.