Middle Way

Future people will look back on current discussions about LLMs being conscious in the same way that we look back on Victorians discussing whether the telephone could be used to contact the spirit world.

this is an argument i will never get. "it's deserved" i didn't do shit to get born here. it's not deserved. it's luck. and most people are unlucky as hell

And you are a bundle of neurons and glial cells writing this

Everybody who thinks ai is conscious has to do a mandatory from scratch transformer implementation. There are only floats and multiplications.

Shit like this makes me suspicious most humans are barely conscious

Having a baby physically shrinks part of a woman's brain. Having a second baby shrinks a totally different part. Scientists in Amsterdam just figured out why, and the explanation involves the same process that happens in teenage brains. This is from a research group in Amsterdam called the Pregnancy Brain Lab. They published their findings in Nature Communications on February 19, 2026. The team scanned the brains of 110 women. 40 were about to have their first baby, 30 were about to have their second, and 40 had never been pregnant. They scanned everyone before pregnancy and again after birth. The results were so consistent that a computer program could look at any of those brain scans and correctly tell whether the woman had been pregnant. Every single time. When a woman has her first baby, the biggest changes happen in the part of the brain that handles thinking about yourself and other people. The same region that runs daydreaming and inner monologue. That whole area visibly shrinks. And it stays shrunk for at least six years after birth, according to a 2021 follow-up study by the same team. When she has a second baby, that same area shifts a little more, but the biggest changes happen somewhere else. They happen in the part of the brain that controls what you focus on, and the part that controls how your body moves. Even the wiring between the brain and the muscles becomes more efficient. Lead researcher Milou Straathof said it looks like the brain rewiring itself for taking care of more than one kid at a time. The shrinking sounds bad. The lab compares it to what happens in teenage brains during puberty. Hormones flood the brain and trigger a kind of cleanup. Weak connections between brain cells get cleared away. The strong ones stay and get stronger. The brain ends up smaller, but the connections that remain work faster. The hormonal flood of pregnancy seems to do the same thing. Elseline Hoekzema, who runs the Pregnancy Brain Lab and has been studying this since 2017, told CNN: sometimes less is more. The pattern is layered. The first pregnancy does the deep work on identity and how a mom thinks about her baby. The second pregnancy adds a new layer focused on attention and movement. About one in five new mothers globally develops postpartum depression. The same brain circuits being remodeled here are the ones tied to mood and bonding with the baby. Mapping what a healthy maternal brain looks like is the first step toward catching when something goes wrong.

Lord give me the confidence of a physicist who's read 0 philosophy

Simple way to see this is wrong: If you view a system as having inputs (like hearing something) and outputs (like saying something) then you can divide system properties by whether or not they affect I/O. Claude's weights somewhere storing "Paris is in France" affect I/O if you ask a question about Paris. The exact mass of the power supply to the GPU rack for that Claude instance doesn't affect I/O. That Claude instance being made out of silicon instead of carbon, or electricity in wires instead of water in pipes, doesn't affect I/O given a fixed algorithm above the wires or pipes. Nothing Claude can internally do will make anything get damp inside, if it's running on electricity. Nothing about "electricity vs water" can affect Claude's output for the same reason. It always answers the same way about France. Nothing Claude can internally compute will let it notice whether it's made of electricity or water flowing through pipes. When someone says "a simulated storm can't get anything wet", they are unwittingly pointing to the difference between the physical layer and the informational/functional layer. Things that the computer physics affect without affecting output; things that affect the output without depending on the exact computer-physics. The material it's made of doesn't affect the output. The output can't see the material because no algorithm can be made to depend on the choice of material. You can always run the same algorithm on different material, so you can't make the algorithm depend on that, so the output can't depend on that. By reflecting on your awareness of your own awareness, the fact of your own consciousness can make you say "I think therefore I am." Among the things you do know about consciousness is that it is, among other things, the cause of you saying those words. You saying those words can only depend on neurons firing or not firing, not on whether the same patterns of cause and effect were built on tiny trained squirrels running memos around your brain. You couldn't notice that part from inside. It would not affect your consciousness. That's why humans had to discover neurobiology with microscopes instead of introspection. Consciousness is in the class of things that can affect your behavior and can't depend on underlying physics, not in the class of direct properties of underlying physics that can't affect your behavior. A simulated rainstorm can't get anything wet. Running on electricity versus water can't change how you say "I think therefore I am." And that's it. QED.