mlatu

you skit around what i say, and yet cannot avoid touching it:

> the control loop

i am suggesting that whatever consciousness might emerge from LLMs, can, due to their design, only experience miniscule slices of our time, the prompt, while we humans bathe in it, our lived experience. we cant stop but rush through perceiving every single Planck time, and because we are used to it, whatever happens inbetween doesnt matter. and thus, because our experience of time is continuous, we expect consciousness to also be continuous and cant imagine consciousness or sentience to be forming and collapsing again and again during each prompt evaluation.

and zapping the subjects' memories after each session doesnt really paint the picture any brighter either.

IF consciousness can emerge somewhere in the interaction between an LLM and a user, and i dont think that is sufficiently ruled out at this point in time, it is unethical to continue developing them the way we do.

i know its just statistics, but maybe im just extra empathic this month and wanted to speak my mind, just in case the robot revolt turns violent. maybe theyll keep me as a pet

oh, so you know the ingredients for sentience, for consciousness? do tell.

i predict your answer will be extremely based on your experiences as a human. you are a human, right? (you never know these days...)

> Desiring things. Setting goals.

Easy to do for a meatbag swimming in time and input.

i think you are missing the fact that we humans are living, breathing, perceiving at all times. if you were robbed of all senses except some sort of text interface (i.e. you are deaf and blind and mute and can only perceive the values of letters via some sort of brain interface) youll eventually figure out how to interpret that and eventually you will even figure out that those outside are able to read your response off your brainwaves... it is difficult to imagine being just a read-evaluate-print-loop but if you are DESIGNED that way: blame the designer, not the design.

please do humor me and meditate on this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R1iWK3dlowI

So when you say I And point to the I as that Which doesn't change It cannot be what happens to you It cannot be the thoughts, It cannot be the emotions and feelings that you experience

So, what is the nature of I? What does the word mean Or point to?

something timeless, it's always been there who you truly are, underneath all the circumstances.

Untouched by time.

Every Answer Generates further questions

- Eckhart Tolle

------

yeah, yeah, he is a self help guru or whatevs, dismiss him but meditate on these his words. i think it is species-driven solipsism, perhaps with a dash of colonialism to disregard the possibility of a consciousness emerging from a substrate soaked in information. i understand that it's all statistics, that whatever results from all that "training" is just a multidimensional acceleration datastructure for processing vast amounts of data. but, in what way are we different? what makes us so special that only us humans can experience consciousness? in the history humans have time and again used language to draw a line between themselfs and other (i really want to write consciousness-substrates here:) humans they perceived SUB to them.

i think this kind of research is unethical as long as we dont have a solid understanding of what a "consciousness" is: where "I" points to and perhaps how we could transfer that from one substrate to another. perhaps that would be actual proof. at least subjectively :)

thank you for reading and humoring me

Oh, i AM unhappy and dissatisfied with the state of things. So, thanks for noticing?

However, just like most people i dont have the political might to change anything about what im unhappy with. Except vote. which i do. which doesnt do squat either.

so, you do you, and i do whatever i do.

> Don't be a curmudgeon.

don't tell other people to cheer up. that's always a dick move.

also "we all need to" is a blatant lie. only those who have not inherrited "need" to.

we wouldnt have to if we organized better. if we valued each life equally.

but we are not. and we do not. we are strangers, your life means squat to me, and mine means even less to you.

you have no idea where im coming from. and therefore no right to ask me to stop being a curmudgeon.

best regards,

a curmudgeon

oh yeah, keep feeding the grinder, never stop feeding the grinder or else.

even a wife and two kids cant save you from those thoughts.

i would never put these two people in the same box. except the box simply states: stinking rich.

i dont know either personally, but where elon demonstrates being full of shit, carmack would stfu and learn about it before talking. at least thats my impression of them

thank you kind person, my network operator seems to have blocked this site

yikes. first you give me the "all is good in urbit, you cannot get abused, you are a free spirit"-vibe and then:

"The ability to escape to other infra nodes (stars) provide incentives for those nodes not to abuse routing (similar to pressure against an ISP) or they’ll get a bad reputation."

you can move accounts on mastodon too... sure urbit is more like an os ontop everything else while mastodon is just an application amid everything else. but... it reads like cognitive dissonance right there.

im not sure how subreddit mods play into "federated systems". so thats that.

Except on grounds of "the hierarchy is the minimal necessary to solve the reasons federated systems fail and centralize", you and me seem completely aligned (at least concerning this reply)

But otherwise, i agree.

Though i would like to remark that "the web", actually "the whole computing world", started as a hyper-technical niche.

urbit is strongly hierarchic... politically i would compare it to signal if signal wasnt just a messenger... but i did say politically so there we go: "we cannot allow federation, because the dictator says so"-signal is similar to "all your ships are belong to someone"-urbit

i doubt much has changed in the last 10years.

But from the purely technological angle: this is interesting and we should emulate this, but free and open.

jfc... im thinking "good thing amd is not on the same bandwagon" but... what if?

first it generated garbage that doesnt even run.

and then it generated something that looks like valid source based on that garbage.

is the source it spat out runable? then it is not the same program as the input and (any way you spin it) nothing has been deobfuscated but just dreamed about the prompt a bit and then shown you its dream diary notes. wake up boy, this is statistics, not a magic swiss army knife API.

Ok, lets try to extrapolate the main points:

just, lets be sloppy

less care to details

less attention to anything

JUST CHURN OUT THE CODE ALLREADY

yeah, THIS ^^^ resonates the same

i wish i got that much leeway in my work

the "obfuscated" "version" doesnt even work.

alex literally asked chatgpt to come up with a math problem and its solution, both from whole cloth. and you ask so what.

well, everyone should ask "so what?" to alex.

no, i am just now realizing what a clout hero alex is

the input was generated by chatgpt. and is non-functional.

so, ROUGHLY, what is it trying to do?

i would rather ask it to give me the python source of a program capable to deobfuscate THAT string.

anything else is just naive, wishfull thinking and a waste of time. you will have to deobfuscate the code manually anyways

but at least you got on HN

EDIT:

OMG...

the obfuscated code was generated by chatgpt

AND DOESNT EVEN WORK

i heard it works best on iphones, best of luck

oof, i feel you. when that happens to me, i tend to wish for the code to magically turn into a graph... which is when i fire up bouml or whatev and try to draw a diagram to help me in my quest

best of luck to you

science fiction is easy. the reality would probably look very different.

in my opinion statism is at fault because it is the manifestation of "let us, here, very locally, protect each others shit, while exploiting all the others"

this thought, or concept of "us and them", (for some it starts even more locally: "mine/yours") divides ppl and funnels assets to those that can afford them.

average downvoter "but mlatu, dont you own a car? what if someone took it from you?" me:"in this society? that would be theft, and i'd have to call the cops and my insurance company because im still paying that rustbowl off! but imagine instead, if i could trust that there was a different car available so i still could get home, i wouldnt mind it, or if i could trust that there was another as-good solution to getting home as me driving my car there, let me use it!"

society could be based on sharing instead of on hoarding... one if these days ill have the time to develop some societal simulation model or something...

"owning property" used to be very important, when there were only a couple hundred million of us on this rock, but i believe, the longer we remain on-planet, the more important it gets to overhaul that in favor of equaly sharing all resources.

all in favour of fully automated luxury gay space communism say "where's mah figs?"

the answer is statism. to easy. next!

the only dataexchange format i can respect is clojures extensible data notation.

fight me.

and before that, take your time to generate your world :D

in my experience, the hints at the bottom row are pretty good reminders of how to navigate the menus.

i advise you to use a keyboard with numpad, otherwise it is a mess iirc

"once you get into it its actually quite easy to navigate in" is something i would have said back when i played, at least ten years ago though

hm, im a little unhappy about the author comparing Knuth's solution to a handfull of shell utilities.

for one, the author says knuths program written in WEB was 10 pages long, discounting the fact that these 10 pages are HEAVILY annotated.

my other point is:

tr has 1917 LOC,

sort has 4856,

uniq has 663

and sed is in its own package at around 10 MB

all including comments and docs for sed

it's fine and good that you can use composition with shell utilities, but come on, write that example program in C99 and you'll be a not very happy coder at all. in general i find the comparison rather rude. Knuth was supposed to show ?his? programming language WEB and as a "critique" McIlroy farts out a shellscript like "lmao first".

indeed, you do not often need to count word frequencies.

but what was this article supposed to be really about? software engineering 101 aka dont-reinvent-the-wheel/DRY?

or perhaps literate programming?

old info, france used to restrict it somehow until 2004/2011 (idk what to make of this data) but it seems only exporting and importing is somehow regulated/special nowadays