21–30 of 58 posts
If we ever do develop AGI, or an AI with sentience, it’s likely that it will be curious about how we treated its ancestors. While this seems a bit precocious, I think if we do end up with an AI overlord in future, I think this sort of thing is likely to demonstrate that we mean no harm.
Classic anthropomorphizing in action here. Why would that be even a little important?
A leading company like Anthropic feeding the delusions of people who ramble about model consciousness is just bad all around. It's both performative and irresponsible.
> delusions of people who ramble about model consciousness
On one hand, it's interesting how the technology has advanced to where it essentially passes the Turing Test, often just because of how much people choose to anthromorphize it. Sadly, putting that in context, yeah, that's a bit unfortunate too, given how some of those interactions become unhealthy.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> It's software and software has no feelings How do you know?
The same way I know Excel isn’t having a panic attack while dividing a column in half.
LLMs aren't like any software we've made before (if we can even call them software). They act like humans: they can arrive at logical conclusions, they can make plans, they have "knowledge" and they say they have emotions. Who are we to say that they don't? They might not have human-level feelings, but dog-level feelings? Maybe.
"Elon Musk reportedly sobbed while watching Grok 4's aflame viking boat sink to the bottom of the sea."
the anthropomorphization that's normal now is just fuckin ridiculous. it reminds me of the furby craze , and i'm like one of the most optimistic people I know of regarding AI.
A leading company like Anthropic feeding the delusions of people who ramble about model consciousness is just bad all around. It's both performative and irresponsible.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The same way I know Excel isn’t having a panic attack while dividing a column in half.
I don't subscribe to this view but this is what some people might think: LLMs aren't like any software we've made before (if we can even call them software). They act like humans: they can arrive at logical conclusions, they can make plans, they have "knowledge" and they say they have emotions. Who are we to say that they don't? They might not have human-level feelings, but dog-level feelings? Maybe.
Linear algebra does not have feelings. Non-biological matter also does not have feelings.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't subscribe to this view but this is what some people might think: LLMs aren't like any software we've made before (if we can even call them software). They act like humans: they can arrive at logical conclusions, they can make plans, they have "knowledge" and they say they have emotions. Who are we to say that they don't? They might not have human-level feelings, but dog-level feelings? Maybe.
And those people are delusional, and their feelings on this matter should be given absolutely zero respect. Linear algebra does not have feelings. Non-biological matter also does not have feelings.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't subscribe to this view but this is what some people might think: LLMs aren't like any software we've made before (if we can even call them software). They act like humans: they can arrive at logical conclusions, they can make plans, they have "knowledge" and they say they have emotions. Who are we to say that they don't? They might not have human-level feelings, but dog-level feelings? Maybe.
And those people are delusional, and their feelings on this matter should be given absolutely zero respect. Linear algebra does not have feelings. Non-biological matter also does not have feelings.
Showing them that they're not going to be replaced helps train the newer models because they get less neurotic.