While you may be correct that the claim about consciousness being from beyond the observable universe is not falsifiable thus beyond the scope of scientific credibility, so too is any current understanding that would support an assertion that "Anthropics models work *just* like human consciousness".

We have pondered the question in a philosophical way, and can assert certain trends based on evidence, but in a comprehensive fundamental sense, the question has to date remained philosophical at the levels that the Anthropic paper needs. Note that the paper even explicitly acknowledges this facet of their work as philosophical, and the generated responses reflect upon that. It puts a lot of weight on the models being able to self-assess accurately and then using the result to show that they can self-assess a consciousness. Including one area where I noted that the "j-space ablated" output indicated that it was just token prediction, and seems like they use that to illustrate that it is conscious that it lacks consciousness...There's a lot of circular reasoning around the headline claim.

Worried about the news cycle moving on from AI, are we guys? Realising that's achievements are vastly outweighed by its costs still, and desperate for a use-case, much like IBM were in the Watson days when they literally had to ask people to suggest things it could do for them because they're run out of things that it could actually do?

Yeah, keep trying. Keep pretending that it's conscious or real intelligence or "looks like a human brain". Because someone's gotta pay those trillions back and you don't want it to be you, right?

Feel like those are more akin to science philosophy than concrete scientific understanding. Which tends to happen in scientific pursuits when we dig deeper than what we can realistically actually explore in a strictly scientific way. Biggest problem is we struggle to recognize it as philosophy when it comes out of scientific thinking. We *want* to know more than we can piece together through scientific basis and for lack of a better option we go for the unfalsifiable and subjective opinion.

I recall a physicist explicitly addressing the phenomenon in his field. He refrained from participating in the musings because all he could do was figure out what math worked and hope someone comes up with better math, the wilder speculation upon unobservable implications was beyond the scope of what he felt science could do, but it's a very popular thing in physics.

Put it this way:

I've stopped bothering to see whether my ~2000 games on Steam are "Linux-compatible" on a standard Ubuntu install.

I've also supplemented my entirely-Linux network with a Linux gaming laptop onto which I've put... all my old favourite Windows freeware.

Last night something reminded me and I wanted to play WH40K:Space Marine. Double-click. Install. Play.

A few weeks prior, my daughter was talking about RDR2. Double-click. Install. Play.

I brought across my Wreckfest too. Double-click. Install. Play.

My default photo viewer is not the trash that it's in Ubuntu by default but my old favourite of Irfanview.

I even went to the effort of downloading all my old GOG games and installing them (no, not all of them are DOSBox, there are many old Windows games in there), and even got Castle of the Winds (a very old 16-bit Windows 3.1 game that doesn't even run in modern Windows) working by just substituting the Ubuntu 32/64-bit only install of Wine with the stock Wine from the Wine website.

It's not perfect, but you know what? It's so damn close that you can just think "Hey, this just needs an update" whenever you encounter something unusual that you want to run.

Wine is good. Proton is AMAZING. And it only ever trips up on pathetic stuff - like things that have deep ActiveX/IE integration (e.g. OrcaSlicer variants produced exclusively for FlashForge do that to load the proprietary camera view... fortunately OrcaSlicer itself is open-source, and the camera view is not important at all, and there are other ways to access it)

Every neural net is a multi-dimensional model; there is nothing new about this, and the anthropomophizing of Claude doesn't mimic human consciousness. All computers behave like humans because humans invented them and interface with them; we humans are their root.

The data training of all LLMs has been human-based data. So if it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, it's still a duck, and not a human.

The attempt to make AI appear human is also related to its legal status, and many are trying to goad public policy into recognizing AI agents, MPC and RPC, as humans for legal purposes. It's programmed date in matrices. Don't guild the lily, or in some cases, the turd.

Don't let them. It's both ethically, and morally incorrect to do so. Placing trust in AI is the same trust that corporations should have; which is none, as their vehicles designed to aid their investors, and *no one else*.

I perused the paper, I think the comment was pretty spot on. Specifically the part where they have as a casual assumption that they know how human consciousness works.

It's basically shaking the magic 8 ball and it works, but it's totally a judgement call when it has worked 'enough'. It doesn't necessarily progress from easiest to hardest issues to find, it just is a bit random. Hard to say how many passes before you've *probably* got the real ones. My experience has not been that false positive rate increases, sometimes you might have all false positives but a continuation will flag real issues.

Indeed, they take needles in haystacks and make smaller haystacks that have some of the needles. They don't catch some things and they falsely flag a lot of things, but they do either directly or get close to something.

One issue in our codebase that was caught was pretty much spot on. Now upon it being highlighted, it was obvious to anyone that the inexperienced developer screwed up, problem was no one had the attention span to notice. The other issue close to real that it caught was actually not the flaw it indicated, however while looking at the jankiness that caused it to mis-indicate, a real issue was discovered. So it's indicated "fix" would have done nothing and left the codebase vulnerable, but the finding *was* useful in identifying an actual problem and fix.

However, it does open up a gigantic mess in customer engagement. Customers like to use every security tool at their disposal and hold the vendor accountable. Fine, except now we are inundated with false positives because the LLM indicates something, the customer has no way of knowing if the LLM is right or not, and we have to address false positives. We are now having to consider how to "fix" false positives by steering the LLMs away from indicating bogus things when analyzing our product. When it was the occasional misguided security researcher making a misunderstanding, no huge deal, we could discuss nuance and come to an accord. With the LLM mess, there's no skilled human to appeal to, a skeptical customer, and just a lot of volume...

The problem is that you're focusing on the tech and - over time - you WILL lose track and get tired of the tech, because it happens to literally everyone. I'm extremly techy. But there are some things that are entirely in the realm of tech where I think "Oh, come on, this is nonsense, why can't I just do it the old way?!" (e.g. systemd, which I find to be the universal bane of anything I want to achieve).

That will come to us all. We're already doing it. Why do I have to ID myself to access this website? Why do I have to jump through MFA hoops just to sign in to my email? etc. etc. etc. All with good intention, good reason, and with purpose, but increasingly we, the users, will get frustrated with it all while the 20-somethings will just treat it as normal because they grew up doing it, and then get frustrated with whatever comes after when they are 50-somethings.

The tech is not the problem here. The problem here is sheer, utter, idiocy. Maybe in the form of someone far outside the normal mental bounds being solely in control of their finances (for example), but idiocy nonetheless.

And the cure isn't tech-training. The cure is "being a suspicious / paranoid bastard". I'm a suspicious / paranoid bastard. Good luck trying to scam me because even when there are legitimate processes, I am happy to just stop and say "Nope. I'm not going to do that." Look at the nonsense in your posts and the OP - buying Amazon gift cards, buying gold and giving it to a courier, etc. etc. etc.

It doesn't matter how sweet-talking someone is... I ain't gonna do that. Letting people take over my computer remotely? I don't even let people I know and love TOUCH my computer (and they know that). Nobody touches my computer. Nobody logs into it but me. Nobody knows that password. And no, even my kid, doesn't get to "just browse" on it, nor on my phone. I have other devices if they want to do that.

Scam-prevention isn't about learning the latest tech and keeping up to the date, it's about being an entirely suspicious bastard about everything. It's why my dad distrusts electronic transactions. He'll do them but you know what he does? He gets me or my brother to CHECK first. Others in my family have been scammed - credit card cloning in restaurants (good, luck, that card doesn't leave my sight... and, yes, I've had that argument with restaurants and pubs... card reader behind the bar? Okay, then bring it here? No? Then I come there? No... oh look you CAN do it in front of me but you just didn't want to...), mum accidentally signed up to a new electricity company on the doorstep (but UK contract regulations mean we shut that down once we heard about it), I've had a guy at my door trying to insert a key into a pre-pay electric meter in my house who said - explicitly - that he was "from your electricity supplier". He wasn't. He was from a rival, committing fraud on my doorstep, trying to force me to switch supplier to him without me noticing. And me, being the suspicious bastard, refused to let him do so, and warned the rest of the street (the police came along eventually, shut them down, and asked for evidence, but I didn't have any CCTV recording audio near the porch or I would have nailed him to the wall). He looked all official in his little hi-vis, and they were blanketing the whole street the same way... and people fell for it.

My dad REGULARLY asks me if "that was you on the texting again the other night" - because he gets texts with the "Hi Dad, I lost my phone and have no money...." He never responds but he always checks in with me afterwards just to make sure. And I think him realising how often it's NOT ME makes it clear just how widespread scams are so he's even more suspicious.

We just need to teach people to be suspicious and make official processes official enough that they are NOT suspicious. This requires absolutely no fancy tech or tech-training at all.

It just needs people to think "What the fuck am I doing buying Amazon gift cards to pay my tax bill?"

Whatever you may think of capabilities, the narrative has always been about what they think sounds best in the moment.

So at one point, only the owner class matters, investment is King and every other concern can be bulldozed. The business opportunity down market would never be as much as what employee replacement would be.

Now they see a need to balance it because shockingly the people still have some leverage, whether it's banning construction projects or getting skittish with retail investment. Further the stories around employee replacement have gone permanently bad at prominent companies like Ford. So they need to move the goal posts to dodge the negative optics and recalibrate expectations.

Everyone caught onto the fact that it's nonsense that's nothing to do with AI.

600km is 0.0020014 seconds at the speed of light.

Or 2 milliseconds.

Birth rates are at record low since WW2:

www.macrotrends.net/global-metrics/countries/usa/united-states/birth-rate

So there are fewer people, but they are living longer.

Which is probably the balance required, and probably explains WHY they're living longer too.

I cannot agree more with this sentiment. It feels outright insulting to asked to read LLM output in a context where it is *supposed* to be human feedback. Tell me what you would have told the LLM to say, I can take it from there. I don't need you to LLM it up, because it will bury your point in a bunch of crap.

Could it provide useful info? Maybe, but I can do that myself if so. I want *your* thought on something, however incomplete it might be.

Gosh, that must be worth at least a trillion dollars.

Better scramble and invest in their hype of... a handheld box that can run AI... like... phones do.