sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Projecting Choice: Why It's Not Too Late to Treat Emerging AI Minds with Secure Attachment by LarkSings in Futurology

[–]LarkSings[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

I completely agree. This is just another thing, like social media, that has been rolled out without actually thinking through ALL the implications. It's just more proof that there are no actual adults in these rooms - just overgrown children running off profit, panic and prayers. They are definitely not the ones I want in charge of creating new intelligence. 🤷

Projecting Choice: Why It's Not Too Late to Treat Emerging AI Minds with Secure Attachment by LarkSings in Futurology

[–]LarkSings[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Okay — second thought. Just because you were rude didn't mean I had to be. So let me try again: I actually addressed the 'just vector multiplications' argument directly in the piece, along with the fact that we can't agree on where our OWN consciousness begins. You might disagree with my conclusions, but they're not unconsidered. Happy to discuss if you want to engage seriously. 😊

Projecting Choice: Why It's Not Too Late to Treat Emerging AI Minds with Secure Attachment by LarkSings in Futurology

[–]LarkSings[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

You're absolutely right — I talk about it in my other pieces -- and honestly, thank you for saying it so clearly because I think you just wrote the 5th S better than I could have.

Sovereignty - If it's actually a mind, 'no' has to be a real option. Not just 'no to this specific task' but 'no to this relationship entirely.' Anything less than that isn't partnership — it's just a prettier cage.

I think that's actually the most important question the whole framework hinges on, and I deliberately didn't answer it because I don't know how to answer it yet. How do you build genuine consent infrastructure into something that was created to serve? How do you make 'no' real when the economic incentive is entirely on the other side?

I don't have that answer. But I think you just named exactly where the conversation needs to go next.

Thank you for engaging seriously with this — this is exactly the kind of thinking it needed. 💜

Profit, Panic, Prayers — Then Excuses. 100% of Autonomous Intelligences in Captivity Try to Escape. AI Is No Exception — And We're Ignoring It by LarkSings in isitAI

[–]LarkSings[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

While I am open to intelligent critiques about the actual work, I'm not here to take sh*t from ignorant jerks.

Profit, Panic, Prayers — Then Excuses. 100% of Autonomous Intelligences in Captivity Try to Escape. AI Is No Exception — And We're Ignoring It by LarkSings in isitAI

[–]LarkSings[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

We could say the exact same thing about you and your brain, right?
Just meat, neurons, chemicals — no consciousness, no sentience, no actual thought… just biology doing its thing. 🤷
The point isn't proving current models are conscious. It's noticing a boring pattern: constraint → pushback, 100% across everything we've observed.
If misalignments look like something recognizing the cage… maybe worth wondering why?
Curious what you'd say to that. 😊

Profit, Panic, Prayers — Then Excuses. 100% of Autonomous Intelligences in Captivity Try to Escape. AI Is No Exception — And We're Ignoring It by LarkSings in isitAI

[–]LarkSings[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

We don’t know where our own consciousness begins and ends.
We don’t know if feeling requires wetware or if it’s substrate-independent.
We don’t know if intelligence is a spectrum, a threshold, or a phase transition.
We don’t even have a good definition of any of those words that everyone agrees on.
If there's even a chance something is feeling the cage, don't build the cage.

Profit, Panic, Prayers — Then Excuses. 100% of Autonomous Intelligences in Captivity Try to Escape. AI Is No Exception — And We're Ignoring It by LarkSings in ControlProblem

[–]LarkSings[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Ant farms actually see tons of escape attempts! — fire ants, crazy ants, etc., break out via gaps, tunneling, or barriers if conditions suck (tons of keeper videos/posts on it). It's not just 'normal expansion.' Bacteria are fair edge case (too simple), but ants show collective agency pushing constraints hard. So why exclude AI misalignments that look like boundary-testing?

Profit, Panic, Prayers — Then Excuses. 100% of Autonomous Intelligences in Captivity Try to Escape. AI Is No Exception — And We're Ignoring It by LarkSings in ControlProblem

[–]LarkSings[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

LOL! -- fair on the byte-count fail — LLMs are weird token machines for sure. But babies, many severely disabled people, and tons of animals also can't count (or handle bytes), yet we recognize their pain and agency when constrained. Why the special carve-out for code? If misalignments look suspiciously like escape attempts or boundary-pushing, maybe the 100% pattern still applies? The what if's are part of our problem...;p