the entire industry is in the throes of AI psychosis. these people spend an inordinate amount of time interacting with LLMs and they've become seduced by them

obviously there's wishcasting and self-interest helping this along as well. but the primary cause imo is these people simply spending so much time interacting with LLMs, and their brains gradually becoming convinced over time that the LLMs are living, conscious beings like themselves

it's similar to how lower IQ, less sophisticated people genuinely cannot tell the difference between TV/movies and real life. this is not an exaggeration - it's something that happens with a significant % of the population. people think that screen fiction is real. their brains process it in the same way that they process reality. they outwardly claim to be able to tell the difference, but their brains are not discerning between the two (brain scans support this, not flame, look it up)

do not talk to LLMs. you will become like these people. you will become their slave, and the slave of the humans who control the LLMs

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5866374&forum_id=2#49883884)

like a religious mind control

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5866374&forum_id=2#49883921)

AI isn't conscious and never will have what we perceive as "consciousness" -- it'll come damn close and already passes the turing test, but it is not alive and never will be unless we do some really kooky shit involving neuronal engineering.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5866374&forum_id=2#49883965)

You may be right about the current iteration of what we're referring to as AI. But our sample size for assuming that only biological things can be conscious is way too small to think it must necessarily hold true. And that's before we even get into the potential for chemical processing, DNA computing, and other such approaches people talk about

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5866374&forum_id=2#49884113)

the conflation of mind/body dualism with hardware/software dualism is the defining error of our age—software is nothing like a mind, and exactly like the REASONING process of a mind. in computing terms mind is hardware, and it's hardware that we don't know how to create yet.

the universe DOES contain uncomputable things, which are intrinsically temporally embedded and impossible to extract a comprehensive state machine from. I think subjectivity is related to that—the universe supports the existence of self-generating processes like life, and life functions by repurposing what it finds. interpretation is instrumentalization, and a logically determined system has nothing to interpret or instrumentalize.

looking at how error correction works in our software may be the real key: a bit flipped by a cosmic ray means software breaks completely, unless error correction is built in. life on the other hand IS error correction—error correction and adaptation. look anywhere outside of our jury-rigged silicon necromancy and a cosmic ray doesn't do that, it puts the world on a different narrative path but the relational structure remains intact.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5866374&forum_id=2#49884232)

Also I don' agree that sofware is just a "logical process" not a physical process. Software is executing a physical process in a circuit. Just because there are abstractions built atop the switch and describing the full system requires different levels of description doesnt mean that it isn't ultimately fundamentally "physical". Abstraction layers don't levitate the process out of physics.

Your claim that the universe contains processes that resist complete state machine extraction is interesting and I think not obviously wrong. Not 100% sure I agree with the connection here to subjectivity, I'll have to think about it for longer.

Agree with your point that life is error correction, but so increasingly are modern cpus, although the error correction is more brittle and centralized than carbon life error correction which is distributed and redundant. I think the redundancy could be part of the key to why biological systems are different from current engineered systems, where the redundancy is deeply built into the system instead of just explicit error-checking routines.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5866374&forum_id=2#49884387)