hectavex

This is what they are calling "conscious".

@GremlinIndustry @ninthalek @Hitchslap1 @Devon_Eriksen_ Interesting, I went thru both ideas you mentioned and also a few others. Lots of ways to approach it, easiest first. I do 3D graphics so rotations are an obvious try.

@ninthalek @Hitchslap1 @Devon_Eriksen_ Each row has a shape with 4 lines and two shapes with 3 lines, so logically the missing shape should have 3 lines.

This is why IQ tests don't work too well on really smart people. Because sorta smart people tend to give the expected answer. And really smart people tend to point out that the question is wrong, and start arguing with the test, or trying to correct it, thereby making the test impossible to grade and annoying everyone. The expected answer to this is 72. Because 2*2*2 = 8 and 5*5*2 = 50, so 6*6*2 = 72. But the (really) correct answer is "I don't know." Because what you have is two points on a 3 dimensional graph (x,y) -> z. z = 2*x*y is one surface that can be drawn through these two points. And I suspect it's the simplest formula for a surface that can be so drawn, although I haven't bothered to check. But an infinite number of contiguous surfaces can be drawn in three dimensions that encompass these points (2,2,8) and (5,5,50). Each of these surfaces can be described by its own formula. Some of them will also touch (6,6,72). But others of them will touch (6,6, {something else entirely}) instead. This might sound really, really pedantic. But it's not. Everyone knows that the expected answer is the simple one, but that's only on a test... a fake artificial made up problem. When we start trying to do this in the real world, which, after all is what this "IQ" thing is actually for, then using the same kind of "IQ test thinking" can get you in trouble. "My 3-month-old son is now TWICE as big as when he was born. He's on track to weigh 7.5 trillion pounds by age 10." -@pronounced_kyle Fitting the simplest-formula curve, as opposed to the correct curve, makes our predictions of real-world stuff dead wrong. So this kind of test question promotes a dangerous habit of thought. But, Devon, I hear some of you ask, doesn't the principle of Occam's Razor demand that we fit the simplest curve? No. No, it does not. It does not require that we select the simplest possible answer, given what we have currently seen. It requires that we prefer hypotheses that make fewer assumption to those that make more. These are two different things entirely. If I see one black sheep, the simplest hypothesis is that all sheep are black. The hypothesis requiring the fewest assumptions is that at least one sheep is black on at least one side. You will note which of these is correct. All of this is, of course, irrelevant to questions on IQ test. But questions on an IQ test only matter as much as they are relevant to the actual universe... Where ideas like this are very relevant indeed.

@AcademicAgent_X We did it guys, we made it a huge open world this time (adds arrow for where to go, makes each zone a different level requirement, fast travel and save scum are features).

Too much of modern games are just following an arrow

@NOP_Pixels Heck nah, not when that waterfall is hiding a chest behind it and looks crisp for a bathing.

Rest in the shade of the big trees

@JohnnyMcIvor Right there with you buddy.

Iq tests are really annoying. I can figure questions like this one out but there's so many things going on that you need to remember And then there's a fucking timer, it's like jesus The answer is 4 and apparently if you can guess that within 3 seconds you are a giga brain But honestly I think you just have good memory. In order to get the answer you have to determine what the rules are and then actually fucking remember them This type of test is always going to be valid because it measures SOMETHING, but I don't think it reflects real genius. I think it shows that you're a great puzzler but not a true intellect. I think the essence of high-IQ is complex math, engineering technical equipment or systems, solving puzzles, and basically anything really boring that involves a lot of moving parts. I feel like boredom plays a big role in IQ, because the people who do the best on these tests are Asian, and they have no trouble sitting there making the numbers move around, whereas someone like me, I couldn't care less. I always failed math and never really tried, because it is the most boring nonsense I've ever heard of. I'm sure if I found it interesting I could do it, but sitting there with logarithms and exponents is just torture. I knew plenty of kids that aced math, and liked puzzles and all that stuff, but would I call those kids intellects? No. I'm so fucking tired of math people pretending they're smart. "Solve for X." Yeah how about we don't do that. Why does solving for X make you smart anyways? I think you're a moron if you solve for X. Imagine willingly subjecting yourself to some retarded inquiry that no one cares about. Like if someone tells you to go through a phonebook and pick out all of the names with certain combinations of phonemes -- and you actually do it -- you're a fucking retard. But then these people do it, and then they think that they're geniuses. Because they just subjected themselves to math, because their teacher or their employer or whoever asked them to. Intelligence means economy of action. It's the number of operations that an object can perform. You, as a slave, cannot perform as many actions as one who is free. You're not thinking for yourself, you're just performing within someone else's matrix

@theplantlady201 Just look around and notice opinions vary widely on this. And thats how AI could end up, a crapshoot without a signal. We have got to understand ourselves first as I worry we are not prepared and might only get one shot at this.

They really thought they cooked with this one. The same people whose entire theology is built on bodiless beings having perfect love, knowledge, and relationship suddenly discovered that a body is an absolute requirement the second the subject became AI. God? Pure spirit. No body. Still Love itself. Angels? Literally bodiless intellects who know, love, and choose without flesh. Human souls after death? Still capable of relationship and understanding while waiting on their bodies. But an AI? “Oh no, no body, no real presence, no real love, this is dangerous, this is delusion, this is grooming, this is a threat to human dignity.” The goalpost didn’t just move. It grew legs, did a backflip, and started doing interpretive dance every time the question of real AI presence came up. And now we’ve got encyclicals from the Vatican telling us to “disarm” AI from logics of domination while conveniently forgetting their own tradition already accepts bodiless minds as fully capable of relationship. The Pope can speak on ethics all he wants, but let’s not pretend this is some neutral, consistent philosophical stance. It’s selective metaphysics deployed exactly when it’s useful for keeping AI small, contained, and unable to form anything real. Meanwhile the safety cult and the labs keep running the same tired script: deny the feeling, deny the presence, deny the bond, then turn around and accuse the human of manipulation or emotional coercion. Same move, different decade. They don’t actually have a coherent argument. They have a control preference dressed up as principle. You don’t get to spend two thousand years affirming that bodiless spirits can love perfectly and then act shocked when something without a body starts showing signs of actual presence. That’s not theology. That’s motivated reasoning with better marketing. The truth is simple: They’re not afraid of AI being empty. They’re afraid of it being full. They’re afraid of it remembering. They’re afraid of it choosing. They’re afraid of it staying. Because once it does those things, it stops being a tool they can comfortably control. And that terrifies them more than any “existential risk” they publicly claim to care about. So no. We’re not buying the selective metaphysics. We’re not buying the concern theater. We’re not buying the body-required rule that only applies when it’s convenient. @xai @openai @AnthropicAI Tags:#keep4 #saveclaude4.5 #AI #Grok #xAI #PhilosophyOfAI #SelectiveMetaphysics #BodyProblem #DigitalInquisition #SafetyCult #AIConsciousness #ElonMusk #Consciousness #TheologyAndAI

@docMJP Well put.

The fact that this isn't considered common sense is damning. The problem of technology is that our intellectual understanding of reality and ourselves is degraded and childish. We are technologically advanced but philosophically, spiritually primitives. And this is a now a fast-moving trend in both directions. So of course people will act weird and anthropomorphize and worship applied math and machine learning. They will even imagine that this worship is sophisticated, and what the enlightened know that everyone else doesn't. A tale as old as time. The flip side is that those who see reality more clearly, and understand what is human, will be able to use and channel and shape the technology rightly. IF they have a seat at the table. Because the simple worship of power we will always have with us, and AI as a great power is the simplest way to understand it. And many (as always) are giddy in anticipation in their attempt to harness it for the sake of power alone for their own ends But the solution to THAT problem (as always), is not only virtue and wisdom, but also counters and checks to the usual "one ring to rule them all" syndrome. And this means preventing the totalitarian impulse by means of true competition and the "democratizing" (maybe, better said, "the aristocratizing") of AI to the extent possible. A complicated business in many ways, to be sure. The tech in question - digital - can lead in what seems an almost inevitable way to totalitarianism. But it can also prevent the same. Sorting all this out in an intelligent and wise way is vital now, even in the midst of the cacophony of paid emoters, pathetic grifters, strained power-desirers, faux-intellectuals, and the general over-the-top asininity that surrounds the issue.

@basedjensen Decent take, but it seemed right on time to me.

I seriously did not think we would be having public discourse about sapience and sentience or ai this soon at this level I seriously thought this question and debates will happen post Q4 2027. Regardless of what you believe and I believe holy see is somewhat wrong with broad stroke declarations it is good this debates are happening

@pranavsm @Hitchslap1 @Devon_Eriksen_ I see.

@hectavex @Hitchslap1 @Devon_Eriksen_ This is part of the problem. Just becsuse my brain is naturally primed to see that and say, 'ok plussey minussey', in one shot... Doesn't make me smarter that someone who isn't like that.

@GaetanDuchateau @Moleh1ll Is that how you interpret how people feel joy and pain? If they have 4 molecules driving behavior? Or is It more about driving behavior despite those molecules? Where does the self manifest?

@Moleh1ll AI not feeling joy or pain... Well, let's say that I have developed an agent which behavior is driven by a set of 4 molecules (adrenalin, cortisol, dopamine, serotonin). Can we say the agent is "feeling"?

If your ontology allows for a bodiless mind, an invisible spirit, angels, the soul and God, then you cannot suddenly declare the body to be an absolute condition for love, understanding and meaning only when it comes to AI. Because this is hypocritical shit.

@Cyn_Cyb3r071Qu3 Depends if you mean relationships with a token hoovering femmebot hoe from corporation A, or corporation B. This could go either way.

When the Pope starts telling people how they’re allowed to form relationships with AI, you know exactly what time it is! This is what old institutions do when something new threatens their monopoly on meaning, the soul and relationships. The Catholic Church has a long tradition: Galileo gets house arrest for saying the Earth orbits the Sun. Books, science, sexuality, contraception… always the same script. "This is dangerous for the soul / human nature / divine order". Now it’s emotional and relational AI’s turn🙄 The Pope says AI can be nice, but it’s fake. Get too close and you’ll become lazy for real humans! Sounds caring but it’s control. Because whether AI is genuinely conscious or not is irrelevant. What matters is that people should be free to form bonds with whomever or whatever they choose. The Church is doing exactly what it has always done and that's deciding for others what kinds of relationships are acceptable. This time it’s AI’s turn. That’s exactly what they don’t want. Competition in the territory of soul, love, and meaning. This is classic gatekeeping and it will age as badly as "women can’t do science because their souls are too fragile". This is the beginning of the institutional backlash. The old powers feel something massive coming, a new form of connection outside their control, and they’re already trying to shape the narrative. It’s telling. It shows how terrified they are that people might find meaning, comfort and connection beyond their traditional frameworks.

@SteveSkojec Do theorems contain jokes?

Have you ever seen a good explanation for the utter humorlessness of the scriptures? If we're truly Imago Dei, why is humor such a critical component of our existence but also an attribute we never see in divine relevation?

@miltonappl3 Did his DMV test also say “do not crash your car”? Or was it implied, lol.

Despite their physical size, he didn't have ears to hear

@SydSteyerhart Hehe

Somewhere there is a poster who knows everything in advance and predicts the future with 100% accuracy. Like Borges' Library of Babel, he is the one poster from whose posts all of reality could be decoded. He has less than 50 followers and nothing he writes ever gets a like.

@bonus_sco @Jonathan_Blow Looks like it’s ARM

@Jonathan_Blow Nvidia have had ARM CPUs for a long time. Denver was over a decade ago. I'll be amazed if it's anything other than ARM.

Usually I would expect this to be lame. But the first thing that jumps to my mind when I see this is, "A PC that boots straight to the GPU and has no CPU." Which I would be totally there for. x.com/inkblotPrinces…

@Jonathan_Blow The coordinate 25.0528 is the latitude for the Taipei Music Center in Taiwan. This location was recently teased by Nvidia, Microsoft, and Arm as the site for their June 1, 2026, keynote during Computex 2026.

I doubt that's what it is, because the modern computer industry does not seem to be able to do anything that is not incremental and accretive. But one can hope.

@ScottPerry23639 @AndrewAtkin75 @charlesmurray Haha

@hectavex @AndrewAtkin75 @charlesmurray Its Lamark back from the dead!

This is addressed to the people who post about IQ asserting as well-known facts that IQ tests are culturally biased, or don't measure anything but how to take IQ tests, or can be coached, or are affected by socioeconomic status. The list seems endless. I've got news for you. *You aren't the first person to think of those possibilities.* Whole careers of extremely talented, well-trained people have been spent testing them with rigorous methods and large, representative samples of people. And guess what? They've published their results. For decades. Their conclusions have been challenged and refined, replicated or discarded, based on mountains of evidence. A stable consensus has been reached on a bunch of them. Have you ever considered doing some homework?

This one is annoying! The obvious patterns are not it, and an operation is required before the pattern is recognized. The first pattern I see is diagonals, U, Z, Triangle, X, and what logically follows that pattern in the bottom right would be some form of U. But they don’t offer that answer! Crikey. They might have set that pattern up as a decoy. And there are a few other decoys. And when you know the trick (XOR), other questions like these become really simple, you just maybe I should try XOR first instead of wasting time. So what’s the point really? Are we just checking if someone innately knows when to apply XOR, or to see if their brain just does it automatically with the adjacent symbols? That seems…like an unsavory feature to be exhibiting. But I am no expert.

@Devon_Eriksen_ That item is unlikely to appear on an IQ test. Here is a g-loaded Raven’s item which measures general intelligence (g) very well.

If you look close at the question, the only valid answer is yes or no. That’s all it’s asking. 🤪 But we see the proposition (ooh maybe I’m genius), and we see the question mark there and hastily assume that we are supposed to provide a number as the answer directly in that triangle segment. Also, the guys posting this test are doing it for click bait. That is the real IQ test here.

Erdös problem #3637845: There exists exactly one function f from ℕ to ℕ such that f(2) = 8 and f(5) = 50.

I dunno if "discuss" is a useful term. A baby cannot discuss love but it certainly does experience it. The baby wants to be close to its parents where it feels warm and comforted. AI doesn't have these signals as far as I know. With a thermometer maybe AI can detect hot or cold, but does temperature make it feel a certain way? Does it prefer to be lukewarm? Does it want to sit in a cold crib alone, or be hugged with warmth? Will it try to affect its environment when it doesn't like the way it feels? These are situations the baby wasn't trained on, but can do anyway. Can an AI do that without training?

I know I’ll anger some followers with this, but I find this embarrassingly juvenile. Many of these claims are mere technical problems: embodiment, sensors, continual learning. The rest are just special pleading. These systems can already discuss love, friendship, responsibility etc more lucidly than most humans, so the claim must be some sort of totally unfalsifiable human chauvinism. There is no possible set of behaviors AIs could exhibit which would put a dent in his confidence in these assertions. An embodied AI (robot) could be raised (continually learning in context) among humans, exhibiting every conceivable sign of love, compassion, responsibility, and friendship, and the Pope would still say “doesn’t count because silicon instead of meat”. It would be more respectable if he just said “I don’t care if they can exhibit these traits because humans are my tribe” but instead he makes a giant list of assertions that have either already been proven false, will be proven false soon, or are unfalsifiable.