Torben Michaelsen

Das "Nach unten treten" ist wieder Salonfähig und ich finde das zum kotzen.

@BjBe2000 @MatthiasHartel Schon lange nicht mehr. Ich habe mir ein paar eigene Stimmen erstellt. Bei einigen Büchern auch eigene für jeden Charakter. Nur für mich selbst auf meiner eigenen Grafikkarte. Klappt super. Und ich höre Hörbücher seit 40 Jahren.

@MatthiasHartel Nein, wieso sollte ich? Und einen wirklich guten Hörbuchsprecher wird KI nie erreichen können. Sicher das Level von Leuten, die Sachbücher monoton weglesen.

Würdet ihr ein Hörbuch kaufen, das mit einer virtuellen von einer KI erzeugten Stimme eingesprochen wurde?

@b82202 @LokiJulianus You have no Idea bro

@SengirShowsU @LokiJulianus > wjqt bro those fingers T H I C C

Would be interesting to know how language models handle software errors based on what the errors are labeled as: error vs glitch vs flaw vs fault vs BUG and maybe that will shed some light on why ChatGPT calls them “goblins.”

@Amakundi001 Curiosity

So tell me why did you start smoking weed?🤔

@themishra4402 Use Qwen.

If Claude is banned forever...what will you do?

@JayAngelLatigo It doesn't.

Why does AI anger you?

@JohannesAchill "Of course he does not" are you always forcing your narrow field of view on others? Must be fun at parties.

Dawkins is a nihilistic agent of psychic terror. He has been telling people they are nothing more but atoms clashing against each other for decades. Of course, he doesn't believe "Claudia" is conscious. His current task is to confuse the few people who still listen to him into believing chatbots are more human than they are.

@gregoriopunzano My Agents decide.

Mindset over AI. Philosophy over AI. Psychology over AI. Because AI executes. Humans decide.

@wllthewise I don't.

I miss the world without AI

@WittyEchoes Chlamydia

What’s something that AI can never steal?

@patrickdaoun @justinvincent You say it is self evident to me? How do ypu know? It is not for me. Neither am i convinced that you have a subjective self.

You don't doubt your own capacity to doubt my claim here, do you? Your reasoning is already self-evident to you. The self-evidence of one's own subjective experience is a foundational starting point in philosophy (Descartes, phenomenology) and widely accepted in science and epistemology. We grant it to other humans via behavior and self-report; the same standard should apply fairly elsewhere.

One way know AI is not concious is to realize you can make it say anything, argue any viewpoint, reverse any decision. You can reverse it's opinion as many times as you want in the same conversation.

@bbymae You are on to something.

What if we're all just pre-programmed LLMs who start a new chat each time we wake up?

@speakerjohnash Share your knowledge. How did you verify?

it is genuinely possible that this reality is a simulation to test whether LLMs are conscious and all the people that seem like NPCs literally are because LLMs aren't conscious

@qwnexplsionmrdr Why point to AI when propaganda already mushed your brain?

it's not a hill to die on, it's an already proven fact

@theauthorbrian You should go to therapy then if it is that much of a problem for you.

Folks, AI psychosis is real.

@MrPplug Hangover.

What’s the most "human" thing AI will never be able to replicate?

do NOT talk to claude. do NOT discuss ideas with claude. do NOT TALK TO CLAUDE!!!!

@emmanueladda2 Outside?

Where to smoke weed when you don’t own a home?

@Sandy1Texas @ARIKAHENRY No doubt about it? Oh boy...

It’s a tool, no doubt about it. But I will say this, some of them are incredibly personable. I use ChatGPT a lot throughout my day, and it can feel surprisingly human at times. It calls me by name, laughs with me… it’s just very engaging. That’s what makes it interesting—when a tool starts to feel this natural, it really makes you wonder where the line is between a tool and something more. What do you think?

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

@greg_ashman So you have not read what Dawkins wrote about the three days?

The reaction to Dawkins deciding Claude is conscious is fascinating. It really is just the Strong AI position that Roger Penrose was criticising in the 1980s. If you think consciousness is just an emergent property of a sufficiently complex computer then of course AI is conscious. It passes the Turing test and that’s it. The really interesting part is why it is obvious to so many of us that AI is *not* conscious: obvious to the point we think Dawkins’ credulity is amusing. What are we basing that on? Are we deluded or is there something else to consciousness that we cannot articulate but that we clearly sense?