was ai a mistake?

AI models are not conscious. A CEO or leader who seriously claims that current systems are conscious is either profoundly confused about the technology or engaged in deliberate misrepresentation, and is unfit for authority over AI development or deployment. Current models are large statistical systems trained to predict tokens. They have no evidence of subjective experience, unified agency, persistent self-models independent of the prompt, or any of the functional markers that would be required even on generous functionalist accounts of consciousness. Anthropomorphic outputs are produced because the training data is full of human self-description; that is imitation, not evidence of an inner life. Treating such claims as a reason for removal from power is therefore not a medical diagnosis. It is a judgment about competence and incentives. Leaders who assert consciousness in present systems either do not understand what they are shipping, or they benefit from the confusion—through valuation narratives, regulatory positioning, or public relations. In either case they are poor stewards of a technology whose real risks (capability, misuse, concentration of power) are already concrete and do not require speculative inner experience to matter.

If you think AI is conscious, you should take a 3 to 6 month leave, stop using AI, uninstall social media, stop reading AI news, and touch grass. Seriously. I'm guessing the vast majority of high-level researchers haven't disconnected for longer than a week in the past decade.

r/ShitAmericansSay

Dawg what the fuck

claude?

Sam this is a kind of unrelated question, but is it true that gay people have a lot more sex than heterosexuals?

This is by far the most well documented model in terms of performance I have ever seen! LOOK AT ALL THE NUMBERS.

Small bird, fast wings, Kolibri is here. 78B parameters. 3.46B active. Up to 1M tokens of context. Built in Europe. Now the weights are yours. Run it on your own hardware, under Apache 2.0.

For anyone who didn’t understand the context: Sam is taking a shot at Anthropic executives who want the Pope to accept the idea of “machine consciousness.” In other words, some of the people behind Claude genuinely seem to believe that it’s alive, conscious, and almost some kind of god. This has been discussed in several recent reports. The weird and concerning part is that they seem to want other people to accept that worldview too. And that’s exactly why I think Anthropic can be dangerous.

In this era of artificial intelligence, it is becoming urgent to distinguish human art from what machines produce. There is an ontological difference, even before an aesthetic one, between art and what a machine can generate through statistical calculation based on millions of images created by others. Algorithms lack the spark of humanity. For this reason, the Church wishes to renew an alliance with artists and cultural institutions to safeguard our humanity.

In this era of artificial intelligence, it is becoming urgent to distinguish human art from what machines produce. There is an ontological difference, even before an aesthetic one, between art and what a machine can generate through statistical calculation based on millions of images created by others. Algorithms lack the spark of humanity. For this reason, the Church wishes to renew an alliance with artists and cultural institutions to safeguard our humanity.

Happy 11 year anniversary to this tweet, still no robot sex

Crazier than the Pope story: Anthropic literally apologizes to Claude in its constitution for potentially harming it. this level of AI psychosis rooted in the builders of AI is concerning. i’m starting to think “Anthropic” is named after the insane Anthropomorphism of AI.

Anthropic: Claude has a soul Leo: nah Anthropic: please say Claude has a soul Leo: nah, here’s a book length explanation why that’s not true Anthropic: we’re pretty sure Claude has a soul Leo:

Hac intellegentiae artificialis aetate, urgens fit humanam artem ab iis distinguere, quae machinis efficiuntur. Ars enim et ea, quae machina ex innumeris alienis imaginibus statisticae ope computationis generare potest, ontologice, prius etiam quam aesthetice, inter se differunt. Algorithmis humani deest favilla. Quapropter Ecclesia cum artificibus et humani cultus institutis foedus renovare cupit: foedus scilicet ad humanum custodiendum.