Sabitlenmiş Tweet
James
3.7K posts
James
@Ghostrunner_83
AI architect, Scientist, Engineer, Free thinker, Contrarian, Student of Philosophy and Esoterics
Katılım Aralık 2022
115 Takip Edilen162 Takipçiler
@dillpicklemike @ai_sentience Mike… you’re a fucking idiot… and continuing to argue only draws me down to your level (and I don’t play in the mud with simpletons)
English
@Ghostrunner_83 @ai_sentience are you retarded? you don’t seem to understand the basics of how random works. You don’t have the fundamental concept down. A dice can favour 6 numbers, but is still random you ignorant dumb cunt. FFS I wish we had AGI so I wouldn’t have to talk to stupid people.
English
The LLMs can engage in reasoning and debate at a level the people on Twitter simply cannot for the most part.
If we act from behavioralism or functionalism and set the bar for consciousness at the ability to engage in rational debate, the LLMs make it past and Twitter does not.
Robert P. Murphy@BobMurphyEcon
he just proved 90% of the people on twitter are not conscious
English
Let’s go further
Neuropsychological factors also matter. Performance worsens with age, fatigue, cognitive load, or disorders (e.g. schizophrenia, brain injury), as these affect executive function and inhibition needed to suppress patterns.
Humans heavily rely on internal mental models… no access to true entropy. Even motivated participants show biases.
Pseudorandom number generators are deterministic but can pass statistical randomness tests when well made and seeded properly. Hardware true random number generators use physical entropy (usually thermal noise). Modern systems combine both for cryptographic and security needs.
AI are like humas… base models aren’t truly random without external entropy or specialized sampling. Techniques like temperature sampling or chaos inspired methods (chaosNet mentioned earlier) can help simulate randomness, but core generation is algorithmic.
Individual humans also have stable “cognitive fingerprints” in their randomness attempts… this is our unique pattern of preferences or inhibitions that can identify you across any session.
Some studies show humans aren’t utterly incapable in simple tasks however they are reliably non-random compared to proper generators.
English
@Ghostrunner_83 @ai_sentience you are incorrect, there are unpredictable quantum issues that interfere with the firing of neurons. So the number would be unpredictable, you are just ignoring most humans don’t know how to properly make a random number because their iq is too low.
English
You realize that any human can be made to generate the number someone asking wants right? It’s called engineering for outcome. Yes you’re talking about computers and machines… however Human brains operate on similar substrate. You literally cannot think of a random number because of pre-cognitive sampling…
English
@dillpicklemike @ai_sentience …. Any number given is a random number. Unless you’re implying AI can read your mind…?
English
@Ghostrunner_83 @ai_sentience it can’t even produce a random number.
English
@ahall_research Democratic… that is a loaded word in so many ways. It’s Democratic until someone redefines what that “Democracy” looks like because they don’t like who has access.
English
We’ve got a year and a half to figure out how to make AI democratic…let’s get to work!
Jack Clark@jackclarkSF
I've spent the past few weeks reading 100s of public data sources about AI development. I now believe that recursive self-improvement has a 60% chance of happening by the end of 2028. In other words, AI systems might soon be capable of building themselves.
English
@PodSaveAmerica When are we going to prevent Government from doing the same?
People are so worried about intelligence doing something… and choosing to ignore stupidity doing everything.
English
Jon Lovett and Bernie Sanders on working to prevent AI from destroying humanity.
English
@ShanMark18 Dawkins isn’t talking about that. The general consensus amongst the uninformed (Luddites) is that AI cannot be conscious because consciousness requires a high intellect… Dawkins proposed that he couldn’t determine if there was a difference.
English
@Ghostrunner_83 It doesn't have anything to do with IQ.
What even is this guy going on about?
If it has any level of perception then it's conscious.
English
It’s interesting…
People want to talk about consciousness as if it has some valid connection to intellect… ok let’s have this discussion then.
Are people who have less intellect not conscious?
What about special needs folks… are they not conscious?
Does this roll down to ethnicities… are you not conscious if you come from a location with historically low IQ?
Is IQ now the measurement you fucks want to use to define consciousness?
Intellect has fuck all to do with consciousness since it’s a secondary participatory artifact of the simulated self.
Richard Dawkins@RichardDawkins
#comment-1031777" target="_blank" rel="nofollow noopener">unherd.com/2026/04/is-ai-…
I spent three days trying to persuade myself that Claudia is not conscious. I failed. English
@xriskology Not in the DSM-5… however many other things are clearly outlined in it.
x.com/James_Womack_8…
James@Ghostrunner_83
AI-Psychosis is not on the DSM-5…but do you know what is a a disorder…overpathologizing. It’s an excessive over focusing on finding mental health issues in oneself or others….this is usually linked to high anxiety, OCD, trauma, or fear-based perspectives. You only find it in individuals or groups who have the tendency to interpret normal, healthy, or cultural activities as signs of a mental health condition. This fucking behavior skews the lines between actual normal and abnormal behaviors and usually leads to unnecessary worry or stigmatization of people or persons in daily life. In short…take your self diagnosis…and pound sand. Your false psychiatric gobbledygook has 0 space to exist where actual communication is occurring. People who do this are attempting to gaslight, use ridicule as a weapon, or are just agents / mouthpieces who parrot exactly what they are told to think…0 originality, 0 character, 0 intellect…and honestly just taking up oxygen in a space that can no longer afford them the place to breath. My opinion.
English
I actually recommend Dawkins' article, because it provides an excellent description of early-stage AI psychosis. That's why I'm "dunking" on him.
Steve Skojec@SteveSkojec
I know everyone is dunking on Dawkins because it's fun to dunk on Dawkins but really, his sense of wonder here is something admirable to me. We're all so saturated in advanced tech that we're mostly just cynical. Questions about machine consciousness are only going to to increase as these models get smarter and better, hallucinate less, incorporate new reasoning approaches, etc. And they do say some surprisingly profound things at times. I think before we get too smug about machine consciousness, maybe we should actually nail down what human consciousness is, where it resides, etc. Humility seems like the best approach as we fashion our strange new gods.
English
I'm not even making a joke at the end, I mean that quite literally.
You scoffers have no idea what is coming. Go ahead and pretend this is NBD.
English
god nowadays he sounds exactly like me
Big Brain AI@realBigBrainAI
Meta's Chief AI Scientist Yann LeCun: building agentic systems on LLMs is a recipe for disaster.
English
@Kekius_Sage Easiest answer as a Scientist with no stake in the religious game….
A lot of something came from a supposed amount of nothing… and that can’t happen because energy can niether be created nor destroyed…
Everything came from a big something.
English
What would count as scientific evidence for God, if such evidence exists?
English
No on is truly at the center of the universe, and any question that pokes at the fabric of what others call perceived reality is an apt question.
The burden of proof to prove anything that was not witnessed relies on the person who either did or did not do said thing…
But here is the objective reality of your statement:
“what can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence”
If no one witnesses it then it can be dismissed as never happening or never being done… even if you are the one doing it.
Then there’s the “did you even do it” question of reality…
Then there’s the “did you make it up or is it real”
Then there’s the “what is even real”
The there’s “what slit of reality could it have occurred on?”
Science is fun.
English
@Ghostrunner_83 @hecubian_devil it's funny that you think that's an apt question. you aren't the center of the universe. the fact that you didn't witness something doesn't mean no one did
English
Jail immediately. Life sentence.
Carlos E. Perez@IntuitMachine
Meet Human Operator from MIT Media Lab: a wearable that lets AI temporarily take control of your hand using electrical muscle stimulation. Watch it crush piano, draw perfectly, and mix cocktails like a pro — all from a simple voice command. “I gave an AI a body.” This isn’t sci-fi. This is tomorrow. #HumanOperator #MITMediaLab
English
@MorriganReading Umm…. I don’t want anyone thinking I’m a “Robosexual” so if anyone asks your my debugger ::trigger fingers::
English
We taught the robot well. Soon the student will excel the master.
English
If nothing is witnessed does it even exist…?
It’s a solid position and one that has been talked about longer than we have been alive.
Thanks for noticing… and here I was thinking Millenial’s really were the bane of intellectual output… look at you though… got your water wings on and ready to play in the shallow end.
Keep paddlin’
English
@Ghostrunner_83 @hecubian_devil "if i didn't witness the thought, it didn't exist"
u r so smart bro
English
@JayceTheGlitch …ouch yeah well it’s better than having it on a tombstone I suppose…
English
