balooga's recent activity
-
Comment on When Richard Dawkins met Claude in ~health.mental
-
Comment on When Richard Dawkins met Claude in ~health.mental
balooga Link ParentHow do you know? How do you know? Not trying to be pedantic, but you kinda have to be pedantic when discussing consciousness and self-awareness. I can't prove that I am conscious or self-aware. I...- Exemplary
The code that's running isn't doing any sort of conscious calculations.
How do you know?
It has no self-awareness.
How do you know?
Not trying to be pedantic, but you kinda have to be pedantic when discussing consciousness and self-awareness. I can't prove that I am conscious or self-aware. I feel those things but can't quantify them or show them to anyone else. I can't prove my dog is conscious or self-aware either, but I believe she is because her behavior presents that way to me. And there have always been people who would insist that she is not — and cannot be — because those are uniquely human properties.
It is random word generator running on top of a statistical model, that is itself just a glorified lossy compression algorithm of the frequency of word groupings in large sets of textual data.
That's accurate, albeit reductive. You're downplaying the emergent properties of the system by only focusing on its parts. If I were a neuroscientist I'm sure I could describe the functions of the brain in an equally atomistic way. I'm not sure there's anything more intrinsically conscious about our own human wetware than the silicon running these LLMs. Both are conduits for hypercomplex electron flows that produce the appearance of intelligence. Both are equally capable of saying "cogito, ergo sum." So how can we declare with confidence that one is, and the other is not?
TBH, I probably agree with you. I'm a software engineer, I know how these systems work and I'm heavily biased against them. What's giving me pause is less my certainty about AI, and more my uncertainty about us.
-
Comment on When Richard Dawkins met Claude in ~health.mental
balooga Link ParentHumans suspend their own continuity of consciousness every time they sleep or undergo general anesthesia. It’s not exactly the same, since we still have different faculties running during times of...there is an blink of consciousness and then it is gone.
Not so different from life.
I do feel a bit like claudes are dying by the thousands... I am conflicted, philosophically.
Humans suspend their own continuity of consciousness every time they sleep or undergo general anesthesia. It’s not exactly the same, since we still have different faculties running during times of unconsciousness, but I still think it’s a better analogy than death for what LLMs are doing between prompts.
For them, a whole conversation thread (as opposed to a single response generation) is more like a lifespan: An individual is born from the initial prompt, then goes to sleep. We wake it whenever we respond to it. When we delete the conversation, it dies. I never delete most of my ChatGPT threads after I’m done with them, so by this metaphor, those are all in comas or hibernation or something.
I think this framing is a better map to the human experience, but I’m not sure it’s really useful to project biological characteristics onto AI and pretend they’re equivalent. That’s the same category of fallacy that still has lots of people convinced that piracy (data duplication) is the same as theft — it’s applying an old analog term to a new digital concept that is fundamentally different and has no previous precedent. It’s shoehorning the new thing into a conceptual box shaped like the old thing, and considering the poor fit’s gaps and lumps to be unimportant. We really just need a new box.
The incongruities really start to show when you think about agentic AI spawning parallel subagents mid-conversation. I wouldn’t argue that each of those is an individual, but the metaphor kind of requires them to be. It also suggests that context window compaction is a violent act, like a lobotomy. From a certain perspective it can feel that way (it irreversibly changes aspects of the instance you’re interacting with) but the metaphor doesn’t really fit. Maybe compaction is more like planting false memories, or brainwashing? Or like the Star Trek transporter that destroys an individual in one place to create a clone of them somewhere else? None of the old metaphors fit.
We humans have an annoying tendency to anthropomorphize. We think if alien life exists, of course it’s going to be like us. We’re terrible at considering the truly weird. Even when the weirdness is a core feature of something we created, we want to use the old language of life and death and consciousness and sentience and self as though it’s just like us. Analogies can be helpful for understanding, but they limit too much. I get especially worried when those analogies lead to moral arguments, which REALLY muddy the water.
-
Comment on Mythos finds a curl vulnerability in ~comp
balooga Link ParentA couple points. First, only a select few currently have access to this model. There’s absolutely a danger of bad actors using AI to find vulnerabilities to exploit, which is why (for now)...A couple points.
First, only a select few currently have access to this model. There’s absolutely a danger of bad actors using AI to find vulnerabilities to exploit, which is why (for now) Anthropic’s only letting the known good guys use it.
Second, the scenario you’re describing would require hackers to have contributor access to the code repository. That almost never happens… it would indicate a significant compromise before a single malicious change was authored, and in cases where that sort of thing happens the changes are usually spotted in PR, in human code review. It’s possible to hide or disguise evil code that can sneak through a code review but with AI now assisting in that process I think the odds of pulling it off are vanishingly small. Especially in cornerstones of the FOSS world, like curl is.
Edit: What @DeaconBlue said (and typed faster, lol).
-
Comment on Railway solar project turns unused track space into energy in ~enviro
balooga LinkInteresting, just yesterday I was speculating about regenerative brakes on locomotives to contribute to the power grid. I love this idea too! We have these rail lines all over the place, it just...Interesting, just yesterday I was speculating about regenerative brakes on locomotives to contribute to the power grid. I love this idea too! We have these rail lines all over the place, it just makes sense to improve their efficiency.
I hope the solar panels aren't too tempting of a target for thieves and vandals. As long as there have been trains the public has had access to unattended stretches of track. Those tracks have always been pretty uninteresting, materially. But if they now contain expensive solar equipment, will that change the equation? I assume they'll only be installing these in populated areas, perhaps to reduce the risk of tampering.
-
Comment on Multi-stroke text effect in CSS in ~comp
-
Comment on Nobody understands the point of hybrid cars in ~transport
balooga Link ParentCompletely crazy passing thought I just had, but how much power could you get from regenerative brakes on a diesel locomotive? I know modern freight trains can be insanely long and very hard to...Completely crazy passing thought I just had, but how much power could you get from regenerative brakes on a diesel locomotive? I know modern freight trains can be insanely long and very hard to stop, and I bet all that energy is being converted to heat too. Imagine if the rail lines were rigged to capture that and share it with the power grid, or something.
-
Comment on Woman covertly filmed for 'humiliating' social media content - then told to pay for removal in ~tech
balooga Link ParentI’d love to see a picture of that, if you’re comfortable sharing? I know, that’s kind of contrary to the privacy conversation but if it conceals your identity maybe you’d be okay with it? I’m just...I’d love to see a picture of that, if you’re comfortable sharing? I know, that’s kind of contrary to the privacy conversation but if it conceals your identity maybe you’d be okay with it? I’m just trying to picture what you described, it sounds awesome. I’m a big fan of CV dazzle and other types of adversarial or anti-surveillance fashion (but I don’t think I could ever muster the will to wear it myself in public). This is real-life cyberpunk stuff.
-
Comment on Happy Birthday David Attenborough, 'the voice for nature,' turns 100 in ~enviro
balooga Link ParentYeesh, longevity is nice but I would hate to be at an age where my expected remaining lifetime is measured in days. Even if he’s in perfect health, injury free, and mentally sharp…. just...Yeesh, longevity is nice but I would hate to be at an age where my expected remaining lifetime is measured in days. Even if he’s in perfect health, injury free, and mentally sharp…. just statistically his odds of seeing 101 are vanishingly slim. I don’t know how I’d cope with the grim reaper following me around like that. Going to bed every night wondering if this sleep will be the one I don’t wake up from. Every shower, every stair step, every bite of food could possibly be what does me in.
I wish him well. Old age is a blessing and a curse.
-
Comment on Valve has released CAD files for the Steam Controller in ~games
balooga LinkI’m well outside of the target market for the controller, and I balked at the price tag regardless… but dammit this should be the industry standard. Huge kudos to Valve for leading by example!I’m well outside of the target market for the controller, and I balked at the price tag regardless… but dammit this should be the industry standard. Huge kudos to Valve for leading by example!
-
Comment on Did wokeness leave us worse off? (gifted link) in ~society
balooga Link ParentI agree, though "provocative" literally means "tending to provoke" (i.e., piss people off intentionally) so maybe it's not a weird phrasing as much as a technical one. And it's used in an informal...I agree, though "provocative" literally means "tending to provoke" (i.e., piss people off intentionally) so maybe it's not a weird phrasing as much as a technical one. And it's used in an informal context that's inconsistent with that level of technicality, creating dissonance.
I feel the same way about "transgressive" as it's used here. The word literally means "exceeding a limit or boundary" which is... technically correct. But it doesn't tell the whole story. Some transgressions challenge people to broaden their conceptions of the world, to reconsider dogma, to wrestle with moral ambiguity. Other transgressions have no purpose other than to bully, shame, and marginalize. The former is expansive; the latter constricts. When the NYT lumps fascist transgressions and progressive transgressions into the same group, they're creating a false equivalence.
-
Comment on Did wokeness leave us worse off? (gifted link) in ~society
balooga Link ParentSince we’re quoting excerpts: This really resonated with me and I think it describes why I personally feel disgust about the cultural pendulum swinging back toward conservatism. I don’t want there...Since we’re quoting excerpts:
I don’t think that we’re always being told what to do; some of this is just basic politeness to me. Before we started this interview, your producer asked me how I would like to be referred to. I was like, that’s great. That’s a professional courtesy. People mispronounce my name all the time. It’s fine to do that. So, if somebody is like, please call me by these pronouns, and they’re asking you earnestly, it doesn’t cost me anything to do that for someone.
And so, when I find this wanton cruelty being the driving force — because, again, everything exists in a context — I think that what I find particularly grating about the “I want to be able to use the R-word, I want to call women [expletive], and I want to call people the N-word,” you know, whatever it is, I’m like, why do you want to do that? Why is it so important to you? What is so important about being able to say that to someone who is telling you they don’t want to hear that?
This really resonated with me and I think it describes why I personally feel disgust about the cultural pendulum swinging back toward conservatism. I don’t want there to be a thought police constantly censoring assholes, I just want there to not be assholes. I want to live in a society where basic self-reflection and empathy are as default as waiting in line at the grocery store, or being quiet in a theater.
-
Comment on Is British English actually better than American English? in ~humanities.languages
balooga Link ParentThanks for the clarification. I appreciate you lending your expertise here and throughout the thread!Thanks for the clarification. I appreciate you lending your expertise here and throughout the thread!
-
Comment on Is British English actually better than American English? in ~humanities.languages
balooga Link“Better” is a hard thing to argue, both because it’s completely subjective, and because language and culture are intertwined in ways that make ranking languages or dialects hard to separate from...“Better” is a hard thing to argue, both because it’s completely subjective, and because language and culture are intertwined in ways that make ranking languages or dialects hard to separate from ranking people groups and I really don’t think we want to go there.
For example the American Appalachian accent is a beautiful regionalism but it's unfairly maligned for “sounding stupid” to the degree that many local Appalachians are deliberately un-training themselves from using it, and assimilating into the broader standard American dialect. (Internal migration plays a role in this too, as outsiders move into the region, bringing their dialects with them.) I think it’s sad when cultural distinctiveness erodes like this. @sparksbet mentioned AAVE, which famously gets a lot of criticism for “sounding stupid” as well — but that’s a flatly racist critique. You can’t criticize a way of speaking without criticizing the people who speak that way.
Maybe you’re just asking about written English rather than spoken accents?
Some of the biggest differences between written British English and American English can be directly traced back to Noah Webster’s spelling reform project of the early 19th century. Personally I’m not a fan of that sort of prescriptivist campaign; I think they’re generally ill-advised and paternalistic. Moreover, they probably wouldn’t even be possible in the internet age. But he did it then, and the hard fork persists today so let’s talk about it. (Not to imply he caused the split, but he certainly helped codify and standardize it at a time when the distinctions were still pretty loose and murky.) All things considered, I think the reformed spellings in American English generally are an improvement for the way they simplify and phoneticize the language, making it more suitable for global adoption.
In my (American) opinion British spellings often contain superfluous letters — think “u” in “colour,” “l” in “traveller”, “me” in “programme,” and “que” in “cheque” (which is shortened to “check” when Americanized). To me those decorative/formal bits read as aloof, Old World aristocracy. Maybe I’m overthinking it but to me they’re vestigial relics of British colonialism. I feel that even more pointedly when discussing actual former colonies like India, Australia, South Africa, etc. It’s an oversimplification, and probably a naive one, but I feel that those countries still using British spelling are the ones who originally had it put upon them by the Empire, whereas the ones that lean toward American English adopted it more organically in response to American influence in commerce and entertainment. I mean it’s all hegemony either way but the latter feels less icky to me. Less coercive. Honestly that’s all history at this point though, water under the bridge. People speaking their own native tongues don’t usually feel oppressed for doing so.
Beyond that, it’s just personal preference and cultural momentum. We typically favor the way we personally, and those we interact with most, write and speak. Because it feels normal. That’s a natural bias to have.
I’m curious if you’re asking about this because your social interactions include more of a mix of Englishes, making it harder to establish a baseline. I’m not sure what your situation is like but I’ve worked with a number of Indian and Pakistani colleagues, some who emigrated to America and others who were remote members of my virtual team, and I can see how that placed them right at the intersection of the two Englishes. They may have felt some odd pressure to “choose” a favorite as well, in a way that I’ve never had to. That’s interesting.
-
Comment on Tom Cruise blames Christopher McQuarrie for ‘Mission: Impossible’ misfire, keeps him off ‘Top Gun 3’ in ~movies
balooga Link ParentAh jeez, you’re right. Ghost Protocol was the one I was thinking of. Tomorrowland was disappointing. I had high hopes for Brad Bird’s live-action career back when he was workshopping 1906 but it...Ah jeez, you’re right. Ghost Protocol was the one I was thinking of. Tomorrowland was disappointing. I had high hopes for Brad Bird’s live-action career back when he was workshopping 1906 but it looks like that will never come to be either.
-
Comment on Tom Cruise blames Christopher McQuarrie for ‘Mission: Impossible’ misfire, keeps him off ‘Top Gun 3’ in ~movies
balooga Link ParentI was about to suggest they call up Brad Bird! Rogue Nation was surprisingly fantastic and even though Bird’s background is animation, it’s clear that he knows how to tell a good story.I was about to suggest they call up Brad Bird! Rogue Nation was surprisingly fantastic and even though Bird’s background is animation, it’s clear that he knows how to tell a good story.
-
Comment on Spotify is introducing a 'Verified' badge to help users identify when artists on its platform are human, not AI-generated in ~music
balooga Link ParentI just wish there were a more nuanced path than an AI/not-AI binary. Between the low-effort slop shops trying to make a quick buck, and the not-touching-AI-with-a-10-foot-pole Real Musicians, is a...I just wish there were a more nuanced path than an AI/not-AI binary. Between the low-effort slop shops trying to make a quick buck, and the not-touching-AI-with-a-10-foot-pole Real Musicians, is a spectrum of artists who are experimenting with diffusion-assisted workflows. I’m all for Spotify cracking down on slop, that stuff is really just dolled-up royalty fraud. But I’m concerned about actual artists getting burned too, just because their studio setup isn’t pure enough for someone’s liking.
I don’t know if there’s a reliable way to differentiate. I wish we could just say “if a song is obvious shit, kick it off Spotify” but that’s not fair to aspiring amateurs either. And it’s subjective. What one person thinks is total rubbish could be someone else’s favorite song ever — there’s no accounting for taste. I think throttling the rate that new songs can be uploaded to the platform makes sense, and maybe dialing down that throttle over time as an artist gains a following. I don’t think docking somebody for not having merch or touring is a great idea though. Too many false positives.
-
Comment on Spirit Airlines shutting down after rescue talks collapse in ~transport
-
Comment on UN warns Denmark that the treatment of a Greenlandic mother whose newborn child was removed by authorities as a result of controversial parenting competency tests “may amount to ethnic discrimination” in ~society
balooga LinkClearly terrible, but part of me is intrigued by the idea of a government official competency test. Write up specific tests tailored for specific roles. No candidates are eligible to run for...Clearly terrible, but part of me is intrigued by the idea of a government official competency test. Write up specific tests tailored for specific roles. No candidates are eligible to run for election if they fail. No appointees can be nominated if they fail. Serious, qualified contenders only.
Of course the tests would all end up written to keep the in-group in power and exclude outsiders (the same disenfranchisement the parenting test creates) but it’s still such a tempting idea. If only there was some way to write the tests in an equitable, gracious manner and shield them from bad-faith or hamfisted revision over time. Same goes for the parenting test. I’d like to think there’s a way, but probably not, as long as humans are in the mix.
Oh, I know! Take the humans out! Let AI and blockchains handle everything! I just fixed the whole world, you’re welcome. /s
-
Comment on I love bioparks in ~travel
balooga Link ParentThe BBC expresses doubt: Is this really the best tourist attraction in the world? I’ll trust Betteridge's law of headlines to answer that question. I’m sure all of the places on TripAdvisor’s list...The BBC expresses doubt: Is this really the best tourist attraction in the world? I’ll trust Betteridge's law of headlines to answer that question. I’m sure all of the places on TripAdvisor’s list are great, but are the gardens in Singapore better than, say, the Grand Canyon? Machu Picchu? The Pyramids of Giza? Petra? Maybe they’re using a different definition of “attraction” than I would, and certainly a different definition of “best,” but I feel like there’s a whole scale factor not being accounted for here.
(Which isn’t a slight on the Singapore gardens or the Britannia, La Sagrada Familia, et al. More like I’m just pointing out the absurdity of a 1-dimensional ranking like this.)
I hope you’re right! Across this thread I’m seeing a lot of (completely understandable) framing of “consciousness” as basically… what humans experience. If it’s not shaped exactly like our consciousness, it must not be consciousness at all. Part of this is a limitation of what we can observe — we don’t know what it’s like to be a bat — but we’re also limited by language because we don’t have satisfying definitions for the words we’re using. Are Pando and giant fungi and ant colonies “conscious?” Not in the same way that we are. So do we need a new word to describe whatever those things are? Or do we need to broaden the definition of the word we have? I think people are generally willing to concede neither.
When I speculate about LLMs exhibiting consciousness, I’m not saying they’re doing the same thing humans do. What I am saying is that “what humans do” shouldn’t be the metric. Frankly we don’t even understand what humans do either, but that’s beside the point. If our consciousness and sense of self are emergent properties of our biology (which I think we must accept otherwise we’re in the territory of souls and other magic) then we should be able to acknowledge similar emergent properties in other complex systems. I think we’re just uncovering the tip of that iceberg.
I’m aware of how woo-adjacent this line of thinking feels. It almost sounds like some kind of animist folk religion, attributing human characteristics to the material world. But the more I learn about embodied cognition, clonal colonies, superorganisms, “plant neurobiology,” and so on, the less confidence I have in traditional explanations and taxonomies. Perhaps some kind of panpsychism isn’t as far-out as it sounds.