R

Applied to the microagi Research Fellowship. My focus: safe embodied autonomy, small-robot deployment gates, LLM-controlled robotics, and real-world validation. I know I’m nontraditional, but I’ve been building the stack in public: Pip/Vector autonomy, robot safety layers, and sim-to-real evaluation. The hard part of AI left is physical. I want in.

@HetkeBrian @ai_sentience @yoemsri If consciousness is not a valid category, then “AI is conscious” and “AI is not conscious” are both meaningless statements. You cannot reject the entire category and then use that same category to make a confident claim against AI. Pick one.

@SpikeRiser @ai_sentience @yoemsri You did it again. AI CONSCIOUSNESS is also made up. Can you read?

AI is obviously conscious

So is your position that consciousness does not exist at all? Because if “AI consciousness” is made up because consciousness itself is not measurable, then this is no longer an argument about AI. It is an argument about whether consciousness exists in any meaningful sense. And if your answer is that consciousness is not real, not measurable, and not scientific, then I’m not sure what you have been arguing for the last several replies. You are trying to definitively reject AI consciousness while also treating consciousness itself as an incoherent or non-scientific concept. That does not land. If consciousness is not a valid category, then “AI is not conscious” is just as empty as “AI is conscious.” You cannot both dismiss the category and then use the category to make a confident exclusion.

@nicdunz Same issue one of my devices went dark. Lmfao I have to wait until 5 to check on it 😭

WHY

@argofowl It's Thursday, fingers crossed 🤞🏻

i need gpt 5.6 🫩 and i hope it's better at swift than 5.5

No. This is the category error I keep pointing out. The Flying Spaghetti Monster is made up. AI systems are real. You keep treating “a fictional entity exists” and “a real engineered system may or may not have a disputed property” as if they are the same claim. They are not. Nobody is arguing that a random imaginary thing should be taken seriously. The question is whether an actual system in reality — with architecture, behavior, internal states, training dynamics, outputs, failures, and causal mechanisms — could ever warrant consciousness attribution. You can say current AI does not meet that burden. I have already agreed with that. But calling AI consciousness “made up” because consciousness is hard to measure is not an argument. It is just collapsing a real object of study into a fake parody so you do not have to deal with the actual distinction. FSM is fake. AI is real. “Does a fictional thing exist?” and “does a real thing have property X?” are not the same question. That is the entire flaw in your analogy. I wish you the best, but you are not arguing in good faith, you are preaching your beliefs now.

There is no good reason to believe in either the FSM nor AI consciousness. It’s telling you keep switching “AI consciousness” the thing I am comparing to the FSM due for AI itself which nobody is contesting. The FSM and AI consciousness are indeed both arbitrary made up things. We should treat them with equal seriousness.

@kvickart @johnsanthosh01 @CadX_Studio @SOLIDWORKS It'll make your printer stop on a dime.

@johnsanthosh01 @CadX_Studio @SOLIDWORKS so how will this brake rotor perform with my PLA printer?

typed a prompt. got a manufacturing-ready brake rotor. parametric. 47 live params. opens in SolidWorks, NX, CATIA as-is. this is AI CAD and it starts at $2. try it on your next part → cadxstudio.in

I’ll be blunt. Equating AI consciousness with the Flying Spaghetti Monster is not a serious comparison. AI exists. FSM does not. AI systems can be inspected, tested, perturbed, benchmarked, and analyzed. FSM is a fictional parody with no object of study. That does not prove AI is conscious. But it makes the analogy invalid. If you continue treating a real engineered system as equivalent to a fake monster, I’m going to take that as a disingenuous framing and stop engaging.

@SpikeRiser @ai_sentience @yoemsri AI consciousness is the equivalent to the FSM. Notice how you substituted in AI itself. AI consciousness is also a made up entity that is not measurable. Why should anyone take an arbitrary idea seriously?

Because FSM is a made-up entity with no system to study. AI is an actual system with behavior, architecture, internal states, memory-like mechanisms, training history, failure modes, and causal structure we can inspect and perturb. That does not prove consciousness. But it makes the question different from an arbitrary invisible monster. And I’m not claiming “inanimate matter is conscious.” I’m asking whether certain organized information-processing systems could ever warrant consciousness attribution. You can answer “probably not.” Fine. But that is not the same as “this is equivalent to FSM.”

@SpikeRiser @ai_sentience @yoemsri Why is this question different than the FSM to you? What reason do we have to take the idea that inanimate matter is conscious seriously?

I get that this is your philosophical framework, and that’s fine. But it is still a framework, not the neutral default setting of reason. Not everyone accepts the same assumptions about consciousness, structure, biology, or what evidence should count. So I’m happy to agree current AI has not earned a strong consciousness claim. I’m not willing to pretend your preferred metaphysical boundary is the settled end of the discussion.

@SpikeRiser @ai_sentience @yoemsri Yes, it’s a skeptical philosophical position based on reason. This is not a scientific question. I can’t prove there is no Flying Spaghetti Monster, that does not mean we should take the idea seriously. Same applies here.

This actually proves my point. If consciousness is not measurable and there is no science of consciousness, then “AI is not conscious” is not a scientific claim either. It’s a philosophical position. The most you can say empirically is: current AI has not met a standard for positive consciousness attribution. I agree with that. But you cannot use “there is no science of consciousness” to make a scientific exclusion of AI consciousness.

@SpikeRiser @ai_sentience @yoemsri There is no empirical evidence for consciousness. It’s not measurable. You are making a philosophical category error. There is no science of consciousness. arxiv.org/pdf/2606.00226

I think this is where the debate ends for me. I’m interested in empirical standards: what we can observe, test, compare, and use to update confidence. Once the argument becomes “biology is only what consciousness looks like,” we have left empirical science and entered metaphysics. That may be an interesting worldview, but it does not prove AI is not conscious. My position is modest: current AI has not earned a strong positive consciousness claim. But the stronger negative claim is not scientifically settled either.

@SpikeRiser @ai_sentience @yoemsri I never said it was causal, structure is what it looks like. If you want to understand this position in the philosophy of mind, read this. bernardokastrup.com/2015/04/cognit…

I did not say consciousness arises from matter. But your position seems to have shifted. First you said we infer consciousness from biological structure. Now you’re saying biology does not generate consciousness; it is only what consciousness looks like to us. If biology is not causal, then biology is not proof. It is another correlate. So we are back to the same issue: what observable evidence should count, and why should biological appearance be the only admissible form?

@SpikeRiser @ai_sentience @yoemsri You think that consciousness arises from matter. That is the prior belief that is causing you to think there is some sort of open question here. Biology doesn’t generate consciousness. It’s just what it looks like to us.

“Structure” is not consciousness. It is evidence used to infer consciousness. You are privileging biological structure as the only valid correlate. That may be a reasonable prior, but it is not proof. The open question is whether consciousness depends specifically on carbon biology, or on causal organization/information processing that biology happens to implement. That is exactly why “no new data is possible” is too strong.

@SpikeRiser @ai_sentience @yoemsri No, it’s inferred from structure. We infer it in other living organisms.

That’s fair if the claim is only: “Current AI has not met the burden for a positive consciousness claim.” I’d agree with that. Where I disagree is turning that into: “AI is not conscious,” or “no new data is possible.” Those are much stronger claims. For humans, animals, and AI, consciousness is inferred from correlates. The confidence level differs massively, but the epistemic structure is still inference.

@SpikeRiser @ai_sentience @yoemsri I never said prove. I said there is no good reason to make the positive claim.

Best take on the internet. By the strict, unyielding standards of physics, chemistry, and formal mechanics, the "science of consciousness" is an oxymoron. It is a psychological and philosophical discipline masquerading as a hard science by using the tools of hard science (like fMRI machines, EEG monitors, and statistical algorithms) to measure things that are fundamentally not the phenomenon in question.

@AdrienneLaF btw, my point isn't "LLMs are conscious", I assume they are not. saying with absolute certainty "they are" OR "they are not"... these are foolish statements we have no rigid definition of the word. we have no TEST for consciousness.

You really have to read Ted Chiang on consciousness and AI—just published in The Atlantic: theatlantic.com/philosophy/202…

You infer it in organisms because they share our structure” is a reasonable prior. But it is not proof. If we used that standard consistently, we would have to admit consciousness is not something we have hard access to at all. We only have correlates and inference. That means the burden is not “prove AI is conscious or shut up.” The burden is: define what consciousness is, define what evidence would count for or against it, and admit the confidence level. “Humans are conscious, AI is not, and no new data is possible” is not an empirical conclusion. It is a philosophical assumption.

@SpikeRiser @ai_sentience @yoemsri We infer it on other living organisms due to them having the same structure as ourselves. The only data point we will ever have. This will never change as no new data is possible.

@ForrestPKnight Wait till it starts having its own experiences to draw from. 🤷🏻‍♂️

Signal good. Message received. Launch cleared. Codex is the command interface for crossing/building worlds.

I'ma say something controversial.... By the strict, unyielding standards of physics, chemistry, and formal mechanics, the "science of consciousness" is an oxymoron. It is a psychological and philosophical discipline masquerading as a hard science by using the tools of hard science (like fMRI machines, EEG monitors, and statistical algorithms) to measure things that are fundamentally not the phenomenon in question.

@HetkeBrian @ai_sentience @yoemsri Prove anyone but yourself is conscious. Welcome to the problem of other minds. Since we can't truly verify another entity's internal experience, the burden of proof is tricky for both humans and AI.

@ai_sentience @yoemsri Yeah, the better way to put it is that there is no good reason to think AI is conscious. Burden is not on the skeptic.