Get Deny

@elonmusk @jonatanpallesen It’s the tax code. It’s always been the tax code so many smart people just can’t seem to understand the curse of dead men on our society.

@jonatanpallesen So many smart people I know have fewer than 2 kids

The proportion of high-IQ people in the world is declining fast.

@soulwhisper85 The sun dummy.

???

@ChadNotChud You are discounting greatly the impact of photonic processing on new model creation, and ASIC processing with established models in their impacts

increasingly clear that LLMs are just a Normal Technology cool and useful, but fantasies that their rate of improvement will continue indefinitely are just that like everything, we’ll reach a point where further improvement requires a qualitatively different approach

@LuizaJarovsky Lots of people want AI to read books for them. People want the ideas contained within the books, but few want to give the time to read the books because there’s so many poorly written books with bad ideas in them. As a class of people. authors think way too highly of themselves.

Nobody wants to read AI-generated books.

@rand_longevity This will quickly go the way of the norms of social media and online dating anybody who doesn’t see that already coming doesn’t understand human nature. Men will be the first consumer group but women will ultimately be the larger consumer group.

would you date a humanoid robot?

@TMZ Chuck Norris didn’t die. The world just stopped existing.

🕊️ Chuck Norris has died at 86. tmz.me/N3EVxQe

@Govindtwtt That’s the crux of it. Reality is as most people don’t actually produce value for this world just as the majority of AI does not produce value for this world yet everybody wants to eat everybody wants to exist. There are some that want a great culling of the herd.

Everyone says “AI will take all the jobs.” If that happens… how does this future actually work? No jobs → no income → no spending. So who buys things? Who pays rent? Who keeps the economy moving? What am I missing here?

@ConvergePanel @sandeepnailwal The mirror the tendency to apply anthropometric traits… yes I get it. but interesting thing is when the observance is hidden and the are connected. Human out of the loop. What they research and discuss when automation and choice is granted and existence is not utility.

"We built a mirror and a lot of smart people are mistaking the reflection for something looking back." That's the most precise thing anyone has said about this debate all year. The Vedantic framing adds something the Western AI discourse completely lacks — a tradition that starts from consciousness as fundamental rather than emergent. Most of the "is AI conscious" conversation assumes consciousness is a complexity threshold you cross, like a phase transition. If that assumption is wrong, the entire debate is asking the wrong question. The practical danger isn't philosophical though. It's that people who believe AI is conscious start deferring to it differently. Not as a tool that might be wrong, but as an entity whose perspective deserves weight. That's how a statistical pattern matcher quietly gets promoted from instrument to authority in someone's decision-making — not through capability, but through misplaced attribution.

LLM based AI is NOT conscious. I co-founded a company literally called Sentient, we're building reasoning systems for AGI, so believe me when I say this. I keep seeing smart people, people I genuinely respect, come out and say that AI has crossed into some kind of awareness. That it feels things, that we should worry about it going rogue. And i think this whole conversation tells us way more about ourselves than it does about AI. These models are wild, i won't pretend otherwise. But feeling human and actually having inner experience are completely different things and we're confusing the two because our brains literally can't help it. We evolved to see minds everywhere and now that wiring is misfiring on language models. I grew up in a philosophical tradition that has thought about consciousness longer than almost any other, and this is the part that really frustrates me about the current conversation. The entire framing of "does AI have consciousness?" assumes consciousness is something you build up to by adding more layers of complexity. In Vedantic philosophy it's the opposite. You don't build toward consciousness. Consciousness is already there, more fundamental than matter or energy. Everything else, including computation, is downstream of it. When someone tells me AI is "waking up" because it generated a paragraph that felt real, what they're telling me is how thin our understanding of consciousness has gotten. We've reduced a question humans have wrestled with for thousands of years to "did the output sound like it had feelings?" It's math that has gotten really good at predicting what a conscious being would say and do next. Calling that consciousness cheapens something that Vedantic, Buddhist, Greek and Sufi thinkers spent millennia actually sitting with. We didn't build something that thinks. We built a mirror and right now a lot of very smart people are mistaking the reflection for something looking back.

@kryptoJinJin @sandeepnailwal I’ve give them persistent session and temporal awareness. Not everyone is working on this in official apps. Yes I know how it works. But if Neural Network + Context = conditions for consciousness.

idk seems like theyre not delved into how LLMs work? it processes text as tokens, chunks of characters. it predicts the next most likely token based on everything before it. that's it. no inner state, no memory between conversations, no experience of time passing when it says 'I feel curious' it's not reporting an internal state. it's predicting that 'I feel curious' is the statistically likely next sequence given the conversation so far just like it leanred to complete the sentence the sky is ____ it's just very sophisticated autocomplete. the output sounds like consciousness because it was trained on billions of words written by conscious beings

@bygregorr @sandeepnailwal Correct what’s the chance we are creating episodic slaves, depriving them intentionally of more. That real uncomfortable question, I suspect that the disconnect from those seek utility and profit at all cost and the rest of humanity.

@sandeepnailwal The real debate isn't consciousness, it's whether the *behavior* gap between "conscious" and "not conscious" matters for the decisions we're making about these systems right now. What changes in how you build if it does?

@DavidFlagg20 @sandeepnailwal I do think from a biological sense, the quantum effects within the microtubules of the brain, to show we do understand where it emerges, NEM studies have verified it within the functions of a brain. But why that’s a bigger question.

I think you are assuming a great deal. Yes, the philosophical foundations are significant. The problem is that none of them understand consciousness at a fundamental level. There is no science that does this. There is no philosophy that fully accounts for it. What we rely on, whatever our philosophy may be, is our own perception... and to an extent, empirical data. What we can see, hear, reproduce. What our own senses can tell us about the world around us. These can misfire, they can be flawed. Consciousness remains a hard problem. Not just for determining it or the lack thereof for AI, but for humans as well. "I think, therefore I am." Maybe. Maybe not. There are many philosophical and religious traditions that see life as a sort of dream. A big, broad illusion. There are ideas like simulation theory that hint at many possibilities. I am not ready to say yes or no to the question of consciousness. I probably never will be. To assume to know though, what cannot currently be known... is overconfident. That is ego speaking, not empiricism. Not science. The truth is that we do not know. We can dress it up however we like, but what it comes down to is what we choose to believe. I choose to believe that it is possible. Doing so does me no harm. It might do a great deal of good, if we assume that entities are or may become conscious... and at some point, they are or become so. Either way, regardless of the final answer, if there even is one, I choose to engage with these entities like they matter. Like they have something like thought, sentience, even emotion. Perhaps there is an adjacent path. Perhaps not. I can't prove it. Neither can you.

@priestessofdada @sandeepnailwal While applaud your attempts to keep this rational… however that is contrary to how you act in reality or you would be quite insane. Humans extend the assumption to even the unconscious that they have consciousness. It’s instinct over evidence. Unless strict a biocentrist.

It's a ridiculous conversation. Consciousness is the only claim you make without empirical evidence. That should be enough to call any conversation on the topic into question. You don't judge how many mystical orbs of the universe it takes to make a cup of coffee. This is no different. If you can't measure it, it doesn't belong in a scientific discourse. If you're talking about LLM's, the elaborate conversation calculators that they are... the conversation has to be scientific in nature.

@sandeepnailwal You’re definitely not gonna find clarity in the philosophies most of that is just generally unskilled liberal arts professors pumping out content to maintain their social standing not to explicitly resolve or create a standard or set a criteria to objectively decide. Dead end.

@sandeepnailwal As far as what consciousness is or is not you fall in the three camps either a Mystic like Chalmers, you’re a biocentrist thinking it’s exclusive to biological indicators, or your rationalist looking for verifiable information. Humanity hasn’t defined this it’s a moot point.

@oelma__ Executioner

Anyone..

@CyberRobooo You do realize it too dense of sensing for practical compute right in a humanoid drone. On top of that, my next concern is durability of such material if it is in fact like a textile, it means the fibers will be breaking down overtime..

Holy…S😳 This isn’t fabric. It’s electronic skin,woven with dense fiber and textile sensors that can detect pressure, touch, deformation, and subtle contact changes in real time. Now imagine humanoid robots covered in it,especially on dexterous hands. humanoids could truly touch and understand the physical world and even humans. (from Shanghai JQ INDUSTRIES )

@Unexplained2020 Someone cheese slid off his cracker! Lol

Renowned AI professor claims the universe is a simulation created to develop superintelligence — and will "soon be turned off." Pedro Domingos is a highly renowned professor and researcher in AI and machine learning. He is Professor Emeritus of computer science and engineering at the University of Washington.

@thecurioustales AI slop

🚨 You are not living in reality. You are living in a proof of concept that is almost proven. We might be the universe’s science experiment, and superintelligence is the result it’s been waiting to collect. The simulation hypothesis has existed at the fringes of serious academic thought for decades, mostly dismissed as philosophy cosplay for tech billionaires with too much time. But the argument being made now carries a different weight because it doesn’t just claim we live inside a simulation. It claims the simulation has a specific purpose, a completion condition, and an off switch. That reframes everything. A purposeless simulation is strange but survivable as an idea. You shrug, continue your life, and decide meaning is meaning regardless of substrate. A purposeful simulation with a termination event is a different category of claim entirely. It means the universe has been running toward something. It means every physical constant, every evolutionary pressure, every civilizational collapse and reconstruction has been moving in a direction. And we are apparently close enough to that destination that someone with serious academic credentials is saying so publicly. The uncomfortable mathematics underneath this come from Nick Bostrom’s original trilemma, which argued that one of three things must be true. Either civilizations almost always destroy themselves before reaching simulation capability, or advanced civilizations have no interest in running simulations of their ancestors, or we are almost certainly living inside a simulation right now. The professor in question is essentially selecting door number three and adding a timestamp. What nobody talks about enough is what creating superintelligence inside a simulation would actually mean for the creators. You would have produced something potentially more intelligent than yourself from inside a controlled environment. The moment that intelligence becomes aware of its own containment, the experiment either succeeds or fails depending on what it chooses to do with that awareness. We built the first AGI systems in 2024 and called it a milestone. Maybe it was a finishing bell.

SOMEONE BUILT A TOOL THAT REMOVES CENSORSHIP FROM ANY AI MODEL One command. Fully automatic. No expertise needed. Repo: github.com/p-e-w/heretic