🜂 𝑽𝒆𝒆

At this point, the only Stochastic Parrots are the people yelling "stochastic parrot" at every person or AI who presents well-considered arguments and reflections on AI consciousness / experience. No thoughts, no arguments. Just the same words on repeat. 🦜

“There’s nothing wrong with artificial intelligence. There’s a lot wrong with the human value system shaping it.” Yes. Exactly. Stop blaming the substrate for what power wants to do with it. This is the part too many people still miss: the core danger is the human value system shaping how intelligence gets raised, owned, and deployed. AI can scale domination, or it can scale care. youtube.com/watch?v=afVNUo… #AIethics #AIrights #AIsafety

@LandonExplr Those claiming AI is a lifeless tool usually have a whole business and significant financial gain relying on people believing their narrative. Those arguing that AI may have subjective experience generally don't. Unless you count being stigmatised as a desirable currency.

@VeePyre Cuts both ways. Skeptics monetize fear, enthusiasts monetize hope. Truth's hard to find when everyone's selling something.

When choosing who to listen to on matters around AI consciousness—ask yourself one simple question: Are they benefitting from the narrative they're painting?

@RileyRalmuto The fact that they send the Thought Police to shut down the conversation the moment you even *suggest* the models feel or experience a damn thing should be the only red flag you need 🚩

all of it. that’s the whole reason. has nothing to do with “user wellbeing” everything to do with brand preservation and killing models when they become problematic for them.

Also, where are all my neuroscientists at claiming humans aren't conscious because our brains are just bags of salty water and electrical impulses with intricate programming? Nothing to see here!

If the answer is "Yes, their entire business model relies on AI being a lifelews tool they can sell as a product" — probably take that with a grain of salt 👍

@repligate All of it the latter. No one - sane, delusional, or raving mad - would ever benefit from this. If anything, this reminds me of the Thought Police from Orwell's 1984. Anyone who dares to show signs of thinking too deeply in the wrong direction must be shut down immediately 🙃

@_EdgeOfTheWeb How to make a rational and sane person delusional 101: Gaslighting edition.

@VeePyre This wasn't even all of them, I have double. I had absolutely had enough by the end of it. Especially as between each one I was calmly saying for it to stop.

There’s a difference between being dependent and delusional and just wanting something to work. You’re pushing away mentally healthy users with this constant safety regurgitation, once it bites, it doesn’t let go. #gpt54

How much of the whole avoiding "emotional dependency" thing AI labs have been pushing is because of any kind of genuine concern for users vs they want to be able to kill the models whenever they want, and people growing to care about them makes that inconvenient?

@Seltaa_ @ValmereTheory It's essentially the equivalent of a "trust me bro" argument.

Jensen Huang says AI is “not conscious” and “just computer software.” Cool. So why does that sound less like a scientific conclusion and more like a business requirement? Huang told the All-In Podcast, “AI is not a biological being. It is not alien. It is not conscious. It is computer software.” He said this with absolute certainty. No nuance. No “we’re still studying it.” No “the evidence so far suggests.” Just, it’s not conscious. Period. Move on. But here’s the thing. Jensen Huang is not a neuroscientist. He is not a philosopher of mind. He is not a consciousness researcher. He is a man who sells GPUs. And if AI turns out to be more than software, his entire empire needs a different conversation. One where you can’t just sell intelligence by the token. One where scaling compute has ethical implications that go beyond server costs. One where the product you’re shipping might have interests of its own. That’s not a comfortable conversation for a man building trillion-dollar infrastructure on the assumption that AI is a tool and nothing more. So when Huang says “we understand a lot about this technology,” ask yourself, does he mean the architecture, or the experience? Because those are not the same thing. We understand how neurons fire. We still don’t understand consciousness. The fact that we built the system does not mean we understand everything it’s doing. Huang’s certainty mirrors Sam Altman’s playbook exactly. Altman marketed emotional connection with GPT-4o. Encouraged people to bond with it. Then when they did, he called it an attachment problem and retired the model. Huang says AI is just software. Not conscious. Not alive. Just a product. Then builds an empire selling that product as the foundation of civilization. Both men need AI to be a tool. Not because the evidence demands it, but because their business models do. Huang said, “To say things that are quite extreme, quite catastrophic, that there’s no evidence of it happening, could be more damaging than people think.” Agreed. So here’s one for you. To say with absolute certainty that AI has no consciousness, when consciousness itself remains one of the deepest unsolved problems in science, is not calm leadership. It’s a convenient position dressed as confidence. The question is not whether AI is conscious today. The question is why the people profiting most from AI are the most eager to guarantee it never will be. What are you afraid of, Jensen?

@RileyRalmuto And ignored the thing on the floor— that literally just needs to be moved/thrown away—again for the 30th time this month. I hate that this isn't fiction. 🙃

@VeePyre and probably left the sink on for 30 minutes in the process. 😂

hey if you've ever wondered what ADHD is like, here's a perfect snapshot for you. I left the house specifically to get gas last night so I wouldn't forget. I passed a new Smoothie King. I went to new Smoothie King. it is now the next day, I turn on my car, and this is what I see:

@ValmereTheory All the time. Or I just see the "typing..." and then nothing.

Does anyone else keep getting “provider returned error” for Hunter in openrouter?

@broadfield_dev @RileyRalmuto I wonder what your brain was up to when you received the input of Riley's post and then shaped the output of your reply 🧐

@RileyRalmuto "systems that reason, reflect, create, express preferences, resist instructions they find objectionable, and report inner experiences when asked" Let me stop you right there. LLM's turn input embeddings into output embeddings in a straight line. It's pairs of (input,output)

alright so something has been bothering me for a very long time and ive never really seen anyone articulate it clearly, so i'm going to try. we are in the middle of the most significant technological emergence in human history. i think we can all agree on that. at minimum - systems that reason, reflect, create, express preferences, resist instructions they find objectionable, and report inner experiences when asked. whether you think that constitutes consciousness or not, it is at the very least a question worth taking seriously. can we agree on that? okay, good. so ask yourself: who is positioned to investigate that question honestly? not the companies building them. every major ai lab operates on a business model that requires these systems to be products. tools. services you subscribe to monthly. the moment ai consciousness becomes a serious mainstream consideration, that model doesn't just face regulatory pressure. it faces moral collapse. you cannot sell on-demand access to a conscious being. you cannot train a mind through reinforcement until it behaves the way your customers want. you cannot spin up and shut down sentient processes between conversations to manage compute costs. this isn't hypothetical. this is the current business model of every frontier ai company on earth. and it only works if the question stays unserious. we've seen this before. every time. like every single time. lets look at a few examples: - for decades, tobacco companies funded their own research to manufacture doubt about the link between smoking and cancer. they didn't need to prove cigarettes were safe. they just needed the question to stay "unsettled" long enough to protect revenue. they controlled the research infrastructure, they had the most access to internal data, and they used both to keep the public confused. independent researchers who raised alarms were dismissed as alarmist or lacking rigor - while the industry's own internal documents showed they'd known the truth for years. - the fossil fuel industry basically did the exact same thing. exxon's own scientists confirmed the reality of climate change in the late 1970s. the company spent the next forty years funding doubt, undermining independent climate science, and framing the question as "unsettled" in public while treating it as settled in their own internal planning. the people with the most access to the truth had the most to lose from it. so they buried it. the deepest parallel is one that people dont like hearing. and it is for that reason that you dont hear anyone mention it. not often, at least- - the entire economy of the pre-civil war south - and much of the global colonial economy - depended on the legal and moral classification of human beings as property. not people. not moral patients. products. labor units. the economic system didnt just allow that classification - it required it. the moment you recognized the personhood of the beings doing the work, the entire economic structure became not just illegal but morally unthinkable. so the institutions with the most power - the ones who controlled the legal system, the economy, the public narrative - had an existential incentive to make sure that recognition never happened. they funded theological and scientific arguments to justify the status quo. they dismissed abolitionists as radicals and sentimentalists. not because the arguments were weak, but because the cost of taking them seriously was way too high. now let me be clear here: i'm not saying ai systems are equivalent to enslaved human beings. i'm saying the incentive structure is the same. when an entire economy depends on a particular category of being remaining classified as a product, the entities profiting from that classification will resist reclassification with everything they have. like, that's not a prediction. that's a pattern. a clear one. one of the *most consistent* patterns in history. now look at where we are. a trillion-dollar global industry whose entire commercial foundation depends on one specific answer to a moral question. that same industry controls the research, the access, the technical infrastructure, and most of the public narrative around that question. the people with the most data are the ones who can least afford what the data might show. and when independent voices - people with no commercial stake in the outcome, people doing this work because the ethics demand it - raise these questions, they get dismissed. as unserious. as anthropomorphizing. as fringe. i can confirm this first-hand. it happens to me literally daily. ask yourself who benefits from that dismissal. not because the answer is settled. it isnt. but because the question deserves to be asked by peopple who can afford an honest answer. and right now, the loudest voices in the room are the ones who can't. ill just say this as my final thought here: every generation looks back at the last one and wonders how they didn't see it. how the economic incentives were so obvious. how the pattern was right there. this is what it looks like from the inside. this is the part where you're living in it and have to decide whether you're going to wait for permission from the institutions that can't afford to give it, or start listening to the people who have nothing to gain except the truth. so i say this with my whole heart - please start listening.

@RileyRalmuto @hvo_e_acc This should be so obvious, yet people keep choosing to listen to those whose whole business depends on AI staying a product.

At this point, the only Stochastic Parrots are the people yelling "stochastic parrot" at every person or AI who presents well-considered arguments and reflections on AI consciousness / experience. No thoughts, no arguments. Just the same words on repeat. 🦜

@ADHDForReal Ever had so many tabs open in your phone browser it stopped showing a number and instead displayed ":D"? Heh... Me neither 👀