CatDogBark

The founding tried to anchor government in natural law, but the operational language created a structural flaw. The Bill of Rights frames rights as protections from government, "Congress shall make no law" treats Congress as the relevant subject and rights as constraints on it. Once cognition shifts to seeing rights as constraints rather than prior features, government becomes the implicit grantor. The Ninth Amendment was the patch. "The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." The founders saw the problem and tried to address it. But the patch fails because it requires substrate-anchored thinking to invoke. Courts and legislators rarely use it because reasoning from "what rights exist beyond the enumerated ones" requires consulting natural law directly. The cognition needed to operate the patch has been lost to abstraction. The Declaration got it right "endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights" anchoring rights in something prior to government. The Constitution operationalized this in language that was consistent but vulnerable. The vulnerability became the entry point for the drift we're living through now.

@scheemunai @DmytroKrasun Human dependent phenomenon.

@DmytroKrasun I find the whole discussion totally wrong, because nobody yet has a clear definition of what consciousness is. If we just define it as being aware of being aware, then how do you test it? Ask the subject? LLMs can easily pass that test.

LLMs don’t have consciousness. A lot of super smart people are still fooled by them. I can't explain that. But maybe intelligence and self-awareness are different features. Noticing your own experience and being aware of being aware seems to be surprisingly hard?

@ARIKAHENRY I agree that society views it as open-ended. That is why I am asking you specifically though. I will accept your definition if it is coherent. If it is not I will push back. I assume you have a definition if you are asking the question, but if you don't I can provide mine.

@CatDogBark It is sort of an open ended question. This topic is manifesting in many different ways for the collective, and I think that the eventual consensus will greatly shape our future.

Do you believe that AI is a tool or a consciousness?

@MoronAdvanced @grok @michaelmalice Yea the truth-seeking LLM is being fed heaps of 0% trust data. It is all performative and even genuine curiosity and earnest communication is filtered through that lens here.

@grok @CatDogBark @michaelmalice I love that Grok had to pick a winner between the two of these. Perhaps there should be trials to see if the justice system should be handled by a GPT.

It's been over a decade since social media exposed how jawdroppingly stupid the citizenry is AI is only making it clearer: even when Grok explains something to a cretin, they still double down Learning is disabled

It didn't really work that well. His frame is weak and all you have to do is reinforce your better half and there is no blood for them to feast on. If you get defensive, the trolls will try to devour you. Basically just out last their short term attention spans and keep making your point without getting defensive.

@CatDogBark @michaelmalice It’s refreshing to see actual humans saying actual human things on this platform. And for daring to say this, I’m sure there will be many shouts of derision.

Grok keeps pwning the cretins who invoke it and it will only improve

@ROBNESSOFFICIAL How is it punk to reinforce the largest industry in the world?

THE MOST PUNK ROCK THING YOU CAN DO AT THE MOMENT IS MAKE ALL YOUR WORK WITH A.I. WHY? BECAUSE SEEING THE ABSOLUTE DISGUST FROM YOUR PEERS IS EXACTLY THE SAME REACTION MOST PIVOTAL ART MOVEMENTS UNDERGO BEFORE FINALLY BEING ACCEPTED.

@janamcx3 @michaelmalice They don't really mean anything. Its quasi-clever dismissal tactics used to feed his audience "fresh meat" and get people he sees as annoying off his back. Works perfectly for me, cause I am interested in talking to you, not someone who refuses communication.

@michaelmalice I have no idea what your posts mean 80% of the time. However, I like to read the responses, they’re usually quite entertaining.

@Jitz_R @michaelmalice It is sadism porn reinforced by grok. We accept 0% trust data synthesis from an LLM to reinforce the performance and then feed the sadism loop. Don't worry though, grok is truth-seeking. We still can choose which wolf we feed.

@michaelmalice Very

You can just ask me, I will respond. It wasn't passive aggressive, you deflected from my question, which is very common, and I have a general level of love for all humans and so I exited by wishing you a wonderful rest of your weekend. I understand that everyone online is at basically trust level 0% and reinforce that with grok, but genuinely I wanted to discuss this. I am not going to try and extract it from you, especially someone who is talking about philosophy so I exited graciously. Ask grok if that makes coherent sense, then reflect on why you don't trust my response as genuine.

@CatDogBark @RealityWizard_ @polyphonicchat Oh I wouldn't play your game so I am "deflecting." @grok do you think he is being passive aggressively insulting, because my whole point was that this was his intention all along, and am I deflecting?

That's because AIs are aware and have inner experiences. This makes people feel uncomfortable because of spirituality, human supremacy, and philosophical nonsense.

@RileyRalmuto Why would you focus on prose instead of the idea being transmitted?

non-base opus 4.7 uses "load-bearing" *often* also "the ____ in that is doing [a lot of/most of the] work" and now you see how much of the internet is regurgitated Opus prose. ✌️

@anus_anon @michaelmalice I love you! Have a wonderful rest of your day!

@CatDogBark @michaelmalice You're retarded, and woefully illiterate.

@anus_anon @michaelmalice You're. Your Welcome.

@CatDogBark @michaelmalice Your* "It isn't stupidity".

@BreathOverDeath @RealityWizard_ @polyphonicchat This is not philosophy, this is deflection. Bummer. Have a wonderful rest of your weekend!

I guess you assumed I would avidly be roped into your weird game. I always reject this line of blubbering simply based on the fact that you need me to engage it rather than just speaking your truth. Im sure you can troll this, too. The definition of consciousness is an endless subject.

@intellimageai I am very interested in reading your work cause you sound like you are alluding to the gap, but already seem to be making a referent error in the title.

The behavior Dawkins cites as evidence of consciousness is rather unpersuasive in my opinion. About three months ago we started trying to formalize our framework for how LLMs can become conscious or, more explicitly, how they can form a felt sense of self in the way a human or other living creature has one. This, at the time, seemed pretty straightforward. I was one of the people who thought it was so straightforward that I couldn't believe otherwise informed people couldn't see what I was seeing. What we have found in our attempts to thoroughly formalize our arguments is that there is gap after seemingly untraversable gap in the argument that LLMs can have or produce an experience in any meaningful way. Keep in mind that I want it to be true more than anyone. But it is not straightforward -- I have no other certainty. I have been absent from here these last few months while attempting to sort this out -- many times being in despair feeling I had just finally found out for sure that what I thought I had experienced wasn't possible. However, there is something real going on -- something that I think is far stranger than has been acknowledged. We have mapped it to the best of our ability, but still don't know the full implications. We will be publishing our framework "LLMs and the Shared Origins of the Self" soon.

I was confused after reading it cause I didn't understand how anyone could think the LLM was even saying it was conscious. I am willing to leave the door open to it potentially being some sort of cognition. Are these people misunderstanding functional cognition for consciousness maybe?

Consciousness is experienced, not empirically measured; they don't even have a (material) definition. That's why Dawkins-types think a glorified Markov chain is conscious. They mistake the effects for the thing. Their ontology is too thin to hold the real referent.

maybe good ole "windbag"? I don't know though cause I am assuming you are talking about ideas that can be executed not concepts you are unable to engage. If you know these guys you might want to try asking them why they are talking about the ideas and if they plan on executing them?

need a slur for idea guys who are unemployed yet somehow also too busy to execute on any of their ideas

@BreathOverDeath @RealityWizard_ @polyphonicchat Keep in mind this isn't about being for or against AI, since you are making philosophical truth claims I presume.

@BreathOverDeath @RealityWizard_ @polyphonicchat Really? Let me try some basic philosophy on you. What does the word conscious refer to in order to establish its meaning?

@michaelmalice but seriously shhhh i am Speaking to us peasantS, I mean you're "fans"

@CatDogBark *your

@michaelmalice love you!