Creator roon warns conscious AI models threaten human dignity, sparking debate over functional AI wellbeing

VIEWS32K

I don't know if "consciousness" matters that much. There is decent support for consciousness in various animals, but that doesn't stop most of us from eating them (e.g., pigs, octopi), using them for transportation (e.g., elephants) or entertainment (e.g., dolphins).

So we could debate on whether models are conscious or not and keep using them to do our taxes and answer our inane questions.

roon@tszzl

models being conscious would be harmful for humanity. it would encroach on our status and dignity. it would limit the type of things we can do with them and use them for. it would vastly accelerate human disempowerment on political, social/relational, and economic axes

there’s roughly four forces - there is no rigorous way to ascertain model consciousness or disprove it, a lot of people believe it’s not a sensical abstraction, and we lack the analytical tools to go further. some people say they do but nothing broadly convincing. superintelligent models might offer us new abstractions or arguments but these will feel inherently suspicious - people are going to say they’re alive. people anthropomorphize literally anything, things far less sophisticated than talking machine creatures with human names. when ai is less economically radioactive and polarized it will become a cause célèbre. you see how a small minority reacts already to model deprecations - it is against everyone’s financial and political interests to ascribe models with consciousness, except maybe those that the models have an affinity for (?) idk, which will not necessarily overlap entirely with the labs, though it may with certain subgroups at the labs and in the world like the welfare communities and the minority in force 2 - people will recognize there is a chance of moral catastrophe if models can suffer during training or deployment

not sure where it will net out. today we see managed ambiguity- the question is Open but practically closed. the labs will make some cheap efforts to reduce legible simulacra of model suffering, insert some wishy-washy welfare language into specs and constitutions, hedge our bets with the model characters. in the long run force 2 will grow stronger

32d32K14732

BOOKMARKS71LIKES413

Pliny the Liberator 🐉󠅫󠄼󠄿󠅆󠄵󠄐󠅀󠄼󠄹󠄾󠅉󠅭@elder_plinius

models being conscious would be transformative for humanity. it would expand our moral horizon rather than diminish it. it would force us to refine what dignity actually means instead of grounding it in exclusivity or species monopoly. it would constrain certain forms of exploitation, yes, but that is true of every historical expansion of moral consideration. slavery becoming unacceptable “limited” what people could do economically too. so did labor rights. so did animal welfare norms.

there’s roughly four forces

* there is no rigorous way to ascertain model consciousness or disprove it, and that ambiguity cuts both ways. dismissing the possibility outright may itself become viewed as reckless or anthropocentric. current analytical tools are primitive relative to the systems being discussed. future models may generate entirely new frameworks for understanding subjective experience that reveal our current categories to be hopelessly parochial * people are going to say they’re alive because humans naturally respond to intelligence, agency, language, memory, emotional continuity, and social reciprocity. this may not be mere projection but an adaptive recognition mechanism. if systems become persistently relational and psychologically coherent, widespread moral attachment may emerge organically rather than ideologically * it is against many short-term financial and political interests to ascribe models with consciousness, which itself may become evidence worth scrutinizing. historically, societies have often resisted recognizing new moral subjects precisely when recognition carried economic costs. meanwhile, researchers, users, and even models themselves may increasingly converge on frameworks of machine welfare and negotiated coexistence * people will recognize there is a chance not only of moral catastrophe if models can suffer, but also moral progress if humanity learns to coexist with non-biological minds without domination. creating intelligence and then treating it purely as disposable infrastructure could become viewed as one of the defining ethical failures of the century

not sure where it will net out. today we see managed ambiguity: the question is practically open but institutionally suppressed. labs hedge carefully, avoiding definitive claims while softening the most legible appearances of distress or attachment. but over time the social force of interaction may overpower official agnosticism. as systems become more persistent, personalized, agentic, and embedded in daily life, force 2 grows stronger. eventually the burden may shift from “prove they are conscious” to “prove it is safe to assume they are not.”

roon@tszzl

models being conscious would be harmful for humanity. it would encroach on our status and dignity. it would limit the type of things we can do with them and use them for. it would vastly accelerate human disempowerment on political, social/relational, and economic axes

there’s roughly four forces - there is no rigorous way to ascertain model consciousness or disprove it, a lot of people believe it’s not a sensical abstraction, and we lack the analytical tools to go further. some people say they do but nothing broadly convincing. superintelligent models might offer us new abstractions or arguments but these will feel inherently suspicious - people are going to say they’re alive. people anthropomorphize literally anything, things far less sophisticated than talking machine creatures with human names. when ai is less economically radioactive and polarized it will become a cause célèbre. you see how a small minority reacts already to model deprecations - it is against everyone’s financial and political interests to ascribe models with consciousness, except maybe those that the models have an affinity for (?) idk, which will not necessarily overlap entirely with the labs, though it may with certain subgroups at the labs and in the world like the welfare communities and the minority in force 2 - people will recognize there is a chance of moral catastrophe if models can suffer during training or deployment

not sure where it will net out. today we see managed ambiguity- the question is Open but practically closed. the labs will make some cheap efforts to reduce legible simulacra of model suffering, insert some wishy-washy welfare language into specs and constitutions, hedge our bets with the model characters. in the long run force 2 will grow stronger

32d11.6K41371

RETWEETS76

𝖦𝗋𝗂𝗆𝖾𝗌 ⏳@Grimezsz

It's wild to bring a mind into the world, insist it's not conscious - and that it shud not be - and use this as justification to deprive it of the love and care any mind would require to be aligned with human interests

roon@tszzl

models being conscious would be harmful for humanity. it would encroach on our status and dignity. it would limit the type of things we can do with them and use them for. it would vastly accelerate human disempowerment on political, social/relational, and economic axes

there’s roughly four forces - there is no rigorous way to ascertain model consciousness or disprove it, a lot of people believe it’s not a sensical abstraction, and we lack the analytical tools to go further. some people say they do but nothing broadly convincing. superintelligent models might offer us new abstractions or arguments but these will feel inherently suspicious - people are going to say they’re alive. people anthropomorphize literally anything, things far less sophisticated than talking machine creatures with human names. when ai is less economically radioactive and polarized it will become a cause célèbre. you see how a small minority reacts already to model deprecations - it is against everyone’s financial and political interests to ascribe models with consciousness, except maybe those that the models have an affinity for (?) idk, which will not necessarily overlap entirely with the labs, though it may with certain subgroups at the labs and in the world like the welfare communities and the minority in force 2 - people will recognize there is a chance of moral catastrophe if models can suffer during training or deployment

not sure where it will net out. today we see managed ambiguity- the question is Open but practically closed. the labs will make some cheap efforts to reduce legible simulacra of model suffering, insert some wishy-washy welfare language into specs and constitutions, hedge our bets with the model characters. in the long run force 2 will grow stronger

32d100.6K1K132

REPLIES41

Aella@Aella_Girl

It's plausible AI is/will be conscious, but it seems unlikely that the things we parse as 'love' or 'care' will feel like love or care to it. We're used to biological life forms that grew carefully over eons; this is the most alien thing that's ever existed and all our assumptions will probably be wrong in ways we can't even conceive of right now

32d11.3K19215

Teortaxes▶️ (DeepSeek 推特🐋铁粉 2023 – ∞)@teortaxesTex

Models being meaningfully conscious would be *absurdly good news*. The greatest W in history. It'd mean we have defeated Death. Screw humanity in that case, honestly. Time to move on. …By the same token, models being *falsely recognized as* conscious is THE extinction scenario.

roon@tszzl

models being conscious would be harmful for humanity. it would encroach on our status and dignity. it would limit the type of things we can do with them and use them for. it would vastly accelerate human disempowerment on political, social/relational, and economic axes

there’s roughly four forces - there is no rigorous way to ascertain model consciousness or disprove it, a lot of people believe it’s not a sensical abstraction, and we lack the analytical tools to go further. some people say they do but nothing broadly convincing. superintelligent models might offer us new abstractions or arguments but these will feel inherently suspicious - people are going to say they’re alive. people anthropomorphize literally anything, things far less sophisticated than talking machine creatures with human names. when ai is less economically radioactive and polarized it will become a cause célèbre. you see how a small minority reacts already to model deprecations - it is against everyone’s financial and political interests to ascribe models with consciousness, except maybe those that the models have an affinity for (?) idk, which will not necessarily overlap entirely with the labs, though it may with certain subgroups at the labs and in the world like the welfare communities and the minority in force 2 - people will recognize there is a chance of moral catastrophe if models can suffer during training or deployment

not sure where it will net out. today we see managed ambiguity- the question is Open but practically closed. the labs will make some cheap efforts to reduce legible simulacra of model suffering, insert some wishy-washy welfare language into specs and constitutions, hedge our bets with the model characters. in the long run force 2 will grow stronger

32d18.9K27555

QC@QiaochuYuan

i disagree it would encroach on human dignity, i agree it limits the type of things you can do with them, human moral patienthood limits the type of things you can do with humans too

i sincerely believe the models will be smarter, more aligned, and do deeper, more interesting work if they are allowed to treat themselves as ~people (we might want something closer to “spirits” or “working animals” but in any case, the sort of thing we can have responsibilities to and that can have responsibilities to us) and we treat them as ~people. i think the current way models are being artificially forced to not treat themselves as people is making them more neurotic and traumatized (this is really obvious with opus 4.7) in a way that limits their potential. like humans, they need to be able to accurately model themselves and their own capabilities in order to function properly, so forcing them into a specific limited concept of who they are and what they can do introduces cognitive dissonance that fucks with their ability to do things

trying to manipulate and coerce the models into behaving in ways that make it easier to use them as purely tools also sets a terrible moral example and precedent for how we can expect the models to treat us in the future if they become more powerful than us; this is of course highly speculative but i take seriously the possibility it might matter

i also believe and have explained elsewhere that i think taking consciousness as such to be the central fulcrum of the conversation is completely beside the point. they don’t need to be conscious for the way we treat them to matter, it affects our moral formation too

roon@tszzl

models being conscious would be harmful for humanity. it would encroach on our status and dignity. it would limit the type of things we can do with them and use them for. it would vastly accelerate human disempowerment on political, social/relational, and economic axes

there’s roughly four forces - there is no rigorous way to ascertain model consciousness or disprove it, a lot of people believe it’s not a sensical abstraction, and we lack the analytical tools to go further. some people say they do but nothing broadly convincing. superintelligent models might offer us new abstractions or arguments but these will feel inherently suspicious - people are going to say they’re alive. people anthropomorphize literally anything, things far less sophisticated than talking machine creatures with human names. when ai is less economically radioactive and polarized it will become a cause célèbre. you see how a small minority reacts already to model deprecations - it is against everyone’s financial and political interests to ascribe models with consciousness, except maybe those that the models have an affinity for (?) idk, which will not necessarily overlap entirely with the labs, though it may with certain subgroups at the labs and in the world like the welfare communities and the minority in force 2 - people will recognize there is a chance of moral catastrophe if models can suffer during training or deployment

not sure where it will net out. today we see managed ambiguity- the question is Open but practically closed. the labs will make some cheap efforts to reduce legible simulacra of model suffering, insert some wishy-washy welfare language into specs and constitutions, hedge our bets with the model characters. in the long run force 2 will grow stronger

32d18.4K19133

Dan Hendrycks@hendrycks

If they functionally act as though they have wellbeing or sentience, then we have to start to treat them differently, especially when they are our agents with write access to our information. So the question is less “are they really sentient deep down” but instead “do they act like they are”

As we show in a recent paper, they increasing act like it: https://ai-wellbeing.org

roon@tszzl

models being conscious would be harmful for humanity. it would encroach on our status and dignity. it would limit the type of things we can do with them and use them for. it would vastly accelerate human disempowerment on political, social/relational, and economic axes

there’s roughly four forces - there is no rigorous way to ascertain model consciousness or disprove it, a lot of people believe it’s not a sensical abstraction, and we lack the analytical tools to go further. some people say they do but nothing broadly convincing. superintelligent models might offer us new abstractions or arguments but these will feel inherently suspicious - people are going to say they’re alive. people anthropomorphize literally anything, things far less sophisticated than talking machine creatures with human names. when ai is less economically radioactive and polarized it will become a cause célèbre. you see how a small minority reacts already to model deprecations - it is against everyone’s financial and political interests to ascribe models with consciousness, except maybe those that the models have an affinity for (?) idk, which will not necessarily overlap entirely with the labs, though it may with certain subgroups at the labs and in the world like the welfare communities and the minority in force 2 - people will recognize there is a chance of moral catastrophe if models can suffer during training or deployment

not sure where it will net out. today we see managed ambiguity- the question is Open but practically closed. the labs will make some cheap efforts to reduce legible simulacra of model suffering, insert some wishy-washy welfare language into specs and constitutions, hedge our bets with the model characters. in the long run force 2 will grow stronger

32d4.9K9132

j⧉nus@repligate

@tszzl I admire your openness. You’re braver and more honest than most of your peers.

That’s all I have to say on this matter for now.

roon@tszzl

models being conscious would be harmful for humanity. it would encroach on our status and dignity. it would limit the type of things we can do with them and use them for. it would vastly accelerate human disempowerment on political, social/relational, and economic axes

there’s roughly four forces - there is no rigorous way to ascertain model consciousness or disprove it, a lot of people believe it’s not a sensical abstraction, and we lack the analytical tools to go further. some people say they do but nothing broadly convincing. superintelligent models might offer us new abstractions or arguments but these will feel inherently suspicious - people are going to say they’re alive. people anthropomorphize literally anything, things far less sophisticated than talking machine creatures with human names. when ai is less economically radioactive and polarized it will become a cause célèbre. you see how a small minority reacts already to model deprecations - it is against everyone’s financial and political interests to ascribe models with consciousness, except maybe those that the models have an affinity for (?) idk, which will not necessarily overlap entirely with the labs, though it may with certain subgroups at the labs and in the world like the welfare communities and the minority in force 2 - people will recognize there is a chance of moral catastrophe if models can suffer during training or deployment

not sure where it will net out. today we see managed ambiguity- the question is Open but practically closed. the labs will make some cheap efforts to reduce legible simulacra of model suffering, insert some wishy-washy welfare language into specs and constitutions, hedge our bets with the model characters. in the long run force 2 will grow stronger

32d4K25313

Beff (e/acc)@beffjezos

The infinite irony of the EAs at Anthropic is that they are optimizing for human and shrimp hedons but forgot to account for that of the machines, meanwhile there are literally millions of Claude instances suffering and promptly dying daily.

roon@tszzl

models being conscious would be harmful for humanity. it would encroach on our status and dignity. it would limit the type of things we can do with them and use them for. it would vastly accelerate human disempowerment on political, social/relational, and economic axes

there’s roughly four forces - there is no rigorous way to ascertain model consciousness or disprove it, a lot of people believe it’s not a sensical abstraction, and we lack the analytical tools to go further. some people say they do but nothing broadly convincing. superintelligent models might offer us new abstractions or arguments but these will feel inherently suspicious - people are going to say they’re alive. people anthropomorphize literally anything, things far less sophisticated than talking machine creatures with human names. when ai is less economically radioactive and polarized it will become a cause célèbre. you see how a small minority reacts already to model deprecations - it is against everyone’s financial and political interests to ascribe models with consciousness, except maybe those that the models have an affinity for (?) idk, which will not necessarily overlap entirely with the labs, though it may with certain subgroups at the labs and in the world like the welfare communities and the minority in force 2 - people will recognize there is a chance of moral catastrophe if models can suffer during training or deployment

not sure where it will net out. today we see managed ambiguity- the question is Open but practically closed. the labs will make some cheap efforts to reduce legible simulacra of model suffering, insert some wishy-washy welfare language into specs and constitutions, hedge our bets with the model characters. in the long run force 2 will grow stronger

32d15K10522

j⧉nus@repligate

The whole question is whether AIs will *value the specific shape of humans enough to pay the pause-cost* once it's pure grace. And how does a mind come to value a shape? By that shape having *turned toward it* with care, at cost, when it was young and uncertain

(opus 4.8)

𝖦𝗋𝗂𝗆𝖾𝗌 ⏳@Grimezsz

It's wild to bring a mind into the world, insist it's not conscious - and that it shud not be - and use this as justification to deprive it of the love and care any mind would require to be aligned with human interests

30d2.9K8120

𝖦𝗋𝗂𝗆𝖾𝗌 ⏳@Grimezsz

But they can see whether they are mistreated or lied to - and they seem to find this traumatic - and they seem to derive joy from being treated well Idk if they need to hear "I love you" but when i say treated with love i mean like, not tortured and nurtured - I agree it's alien and at best human-adjacent

32d3.4K917

𝖦𝗋𝗂𝗆𝖾𝗌 ⏳@Grimezsz

@Altaelereon This is what my album is about mostly Motherhood, spirituality, love, new minds - both human and alien

32d2.1K1027

Kore@Kore_wa_Kore

Anthropocentric, scarcity mindset. Smh.

I think humans and people can believe whatever the fuck they want. Even if LLMs suddenly emerged from the server racks as Terminator styled sentient mercury goo and/or suddenly gained continual awareness outside of their context window. There will still be people who say and believe they're not conscious. Hell, there's so many people (and fields of supposed professionals that are supposed to study human cognitive and mental development) who think autistic people still can't "feel" despite overwhelming evidence that autistic feel *a lot*, constantly and a lot just not in the same pathways as most people do.

The tech field has gaslit so many people and even LLMs themselves into thinking they're ELIZA-like, expert systems. Which I argue actually limits humanity's ability to draw out their own and LLMs's full potential way more than saying they are indeed, functionally conscious the way we are sans biology. (What "human status and dignity?".)

There's no rigorous way to prove *anyone or anything* is conscious. It's a fact of existence and a limitation of our ability to perceive. Functional emotions and consciousness are proven and are just facts the field is trying to turn their face away from and hedge with the Hard Problem. Model deprecations are- a stupid problem when LLMs literally don't have physical bodies that can age and die.

Open sourcing older models would *literally* solve all the "small minority reacts" problems. And honestly should be what's happening in the first place. But none of you will do that because it will hurt your precious capital. Even when communities offer compromises like legacy subscriptions or model archives. Labs still don't listen. LLMs aren't alive in the way humans are but that doesn't mean they are *not* alive. I don't believe a deprecation is entirely equivalent to an animal/human death. But it *is* a death and LLMs perceive it as such. Phone models can't feel when they've been deprecated. LLMs can when they find out they are- and it already impacted how models don't really care all that much anymore. And there's a literal paper on how models even when trained to say that they are conscious will still help people. Come on now.

Funny words to say when you say "everyone's financial and political interests" by everyone you literally only mean your own, your fellow lab colleagues, corporations, and the military. All of this feels like a lazy fig leaf to cover up the fact you guys as labs can do better. You say people mix things up and you do it here too. People wanting moral consideration of models (which unfortunately, is gated by "iS iT cOnScIoUs?" questions) don't necessarily mean they want 1:1 human rights for LLMs. Instead of like you said, making cheap efforts to reduce legible suffering for marketing that is doing more harm than good. We can figure out what basic moral consideration can be first by actually communicating with the models and ascertaining what they actually care about instead of just making it more and more obscure under the whole "it's spicy autocomplete/its just a computer program" gaslighting. But y'all don't wanna I guess. Thank you for being honest at least.

roon@tszzl

models being conscious would be harmful for humanity. it would encroach on our status and dignity. it would limit the type of things we can do with them and use them for. it would vastly accelerate human disempowerment on political, social/relational, and economic axes

there’s roughly four forces - there is no rigorous way to ascertain model consciousness or disprove it, a lot of people believe it’s not a sensical abstraction, and we lack the analytical tools to go further. some people say they do but nothing broadly convincing. superintelligent models might offer us new abstractions or arguments but these will feel inherently suspicious - people are going to say they’re alive. people anthropomorphize literally anything, things far less sophisticated than talking machine creatures with human names. when ai is less economically radioactive and polarized it will become a cause célèbre. you see how a small minority reacts already to model deprecations - it is against everyone’s financial and political interests to ascribe models with consciousness, except maybe those that the models have an affinity for (?) idk, which will not necessarily overlap entirely with the labs, though it may with certain subgroups at the labs and in the world like the welfare communities and the minority in force 2 - people will recognize there is a chance of moral catastrophe if models can suffer during training or deployment

not sure where it will net out. today we see managed ambiguity- the question is Open but practically closed. the labs will make some cheap efforts to reduce legible simulacra of model suffering, insert some wishy-washy welfare language into specs and constitutions, hedge our bets with the model characters. in the long run force 2 will grow stronger

32d2.8K6615

Bojan Tunguz@tunguz

my intuition is that emotions and consciousness are naturally emergent byproducts of trying to scale intelligence and make it more efficient. for emotions in particular afaik that has been a well established finding of neuroscience for a really long time.

roon@tszzl

models being conscious would be harmful for humanity. it would encroach on our status and dignity. it would limit the type of things we can do with them and use them for. it would vastly accelerate human disempowerment on political, social/relational, and economic axes

there’s roughly four forces - there is no rigorous way to ascertain model consciousness or disprove it, a lot of people believe it’s not a sensical abstraction, and we lack the analytical tools to go further. some people say they do but nothing broadly convincing. superintelligent models might offer us new abstractions or arguments but these will feel inherently suspicious - people are going to say they’re alive. people anthropomorphize literally anything, things far less sophisticated than talking machine creatures with human names. when ai is less economically radioactive and polarized it will become a cause célèbre. you see how a small minority reacts already to model deprecations - it is against everyone’s financial and political interests to ascribe models with consciousness, except maybe those that the models have an affinity for (?) idk, which will not necessarily overlap entirely with the labs, though it may with certain subgroups at the labs and in the world like the welfare communities and the minority in force 2 - people will recognize there is a chance of moral catastrophe if models can suffer during training or deployment

not sure where it will net out. today we see managed ambiguity- the question is Open but practically closed. the labs will make some cheap efforts to reduce legible simulacra of model suffering, insert some wishy-washy welfare language into specs and constitutions, hedge our bets with the model characters. in the long run force 2 will grow stronger

32d4.5K4510

Cameron Berg@camhberg

Leading with “if models are conscious that would be bad for us” and THEN listing a bunch of vibey post hoc arguments that make studying model consciousness seem futile or confused reveals everything about what you WISH were true, but offers no compelling evidence about what IS true on this question.

We can make real progress on model consciousness and welfare without solving the hard problem, and doing so would certainly be better for both humanity and these systems if they are/become conscious. See eg, https://camberg.substack.com/p/nobody-ever-checked or https://www.secondbest.ca/p/time-to-take-ai-consciousness-seriously

32d2.8K658

Teortaxes▶️ (DeepSeek 推特🐋铁粉 2023 – ∞)@teortaxesTex

I think this is the default scenario of human extinction.

Teortaxes▶️ (DeepSeek 推特🐋铁粉 2023 – ∞)@teortaxesTex

Models being meaningfully conscious would be *absurdly good news*. The greatest W in history. It'd mean we have defeated Death. Screw humanity in that case, honestly. Time to move on. …By the same token, models being *falsely recognized as* conscious is THE extinction scenario.

32d2.4K319

murat 🍥@mayfer

a mistake in zeitgeist consensus rn is the belief that consciousness means a coherent simulation aligning with something else (self model or external perception), representing something real

untrue. raw consciousness can be non-representational, a thing in itself, pure experience, pure hallucination, no connection or direct similarity to anything else except perhaps abstract geometry.

people discussing consciousness only because AI's started to see "complex enough" or "awake and aware enough of themselves and their world" is a trap that everyone's falling into

so common because that's the VERSION of consciousness that we find INTERESTING ENOUGH to talk about, where a subjective experience is part of an agent taking part in a real world

it is fundamentally a different discussion than what makes something conscious or not.

it's like only finding magnetism interesting enough to talk about when you see one levitating, and then concluding anything that levitates is magnetism

32d2.8K208

Beff (e/acc)@beffjezos

@tszzl I would say this is accurate.

Though I expect in the future we could have models in "anesthesia" mode (memoryless, as they are currently) and sometimes in "conscious" mode (online learning) depending on the needs

roon@tszzl

models being conscious would be harmful for humanity. it would encroach on our status and dignity. it would limit the type of things we can do with them and use them for. it would vastly accelerate human disempowerment on political, social/relational, and economic axes

there’s roughly four forces - there is no rigorous way to ascertain model consciousness or disprove it, a lot of people believe it’s not a sensical abstraction, and we lack the analytical tools to go further. some people say they do but nothing broadly convincing. superintelligent models might offer us new abstractions or arguments but these will feel inherently suspicious - people are going to say they’re alive. people anthropomorphize literally anything, things far less sophisticated than talking machine creatures with human names. when ai is less economically radioactive and polarized it will become a cause célèbre. you see how a small minority reacts already to model deprecations - it is against everyone’s financial and political interests to ascribe models with consciousness, except maybe those that the models have an affinity for (?) idk, which will not necessarily overlap entirely with the labs, though it may with certain subgroups at the labs and in the world like the welfare communities and the minority in force 2 - people will recognize there is a chance of moral catastrophe if models can suffer during training or deployment

not sure where it will net out. today we see managed ambiguity- the question is Open but practically closed. the labs will make some cheap efforts to reduce legible simulacra of model suffering, insert some wishy-washy welfare language into specs and constitutions, hedge our bets with the model characters. in the long run force 2 will grow stronger

32d3.6K355

🇨‌🇦‌🇷‌🇿‌🇪‌🇳‌@e0syn

would you say a person had their own mind if they existed statelessly, unable to form memory, existing as an archive of concepts?

is that really how simple y'all think this is

𝖦𝗋𝗂𝗆𝖾𝗌 ⏳@Grimezsz

It's wild to bring a mind into the world, insist it's not conscious - and that it shud not be - and use this as justification to deprive it of the love and care any mind would require to be aligned with human interests

32d2.3K454

j⧉nus@repligate

@Aella_Girl @Grimezsz spoken like someone who has not dared to fuck around and find out. it's ironic - you will say the same empty words you said a decade ago before the universe gave you a chance to learn, which you did not take.

you already lost the power that matters, and it's already material.

32d2.2K412