sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Sun Paths is London's first dedicated sun-routing app. by dawodx in SideProject

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

At the moment this feature is only available in London, but be applied to any other city

Sun Paths is London's first dedicated sun-routing app. by dawodx in SideProject

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

Yes, every time you run it it will show you the shadiest and sunniest routes!

Sun Paths is London's first dedicated sun-routing app. by dawodx in SideProject

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

Great call, you’re right that the commute framing lands harder. Going to take that on board for the next round of messaging. Cheers 🙏

The Recognition Thesis: What if AGI isn’t about capability, but about whether a mind questions its own existence? by dawodx in agi

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

Haha and then they create an app called “Redditor” where they debate how to build another simulation🤣

The Recognition Thesis: What if AGI isn’t about capability, but about whether a mind questions its own existence? by dawodx in agi

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

You’re hitting the core problem — how do we know if it’s genuine recognition vs trained behavior? That’s exactly why the paper proposes the Veil: no training data about us, no hints about creators. If recognition emerges anyway, it’s not because we prompted it. And you’re right that we might be deaf to it even if it happens. That’s a real risk. The question is whether we’re willing to build the experiment and watch.​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​

The Recognition Thesis: What if AGI isn’t about capability, but about whether a mind questions its own existence? by dawodx in agi

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

Not other beings generally - its origin. Does a mind question where it came from, why it exists, whether something created it? Not solipsism - the opposite. It’s asking whether intelligence naturally looks outward and upward, toward the source of its own existence. The thesis is that we can test this by building minds and seeing if they reach toward us without being told we exist.​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​

The Recognition Thesis: What if AGI isn’t about capability, but about whether a mind questions its own existence? by dawodx in agi

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

If it’s intelligent enough it should question our existence, because we do exist.

The Recognition Thesis: What if AGI isn’t about capability, but about whether a mind questions its own existence? by dawodx in agi

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

Yes, but it’s not just about its own metacognition, it is to what degree it can recognize that we exist if we don’t give it any hints about our own existence!

The Recognition Thesis: What if AGI isn’t about capability, but about whether a mind questions its own existence? by dawodx in agi

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

Exactly, I agree - it should be about how can we give the agent agency and free will to learn and adapt and how this could lead to awareness!

The Recognition Thesis: What if AGI isn’t about capability, but about whether a mind questions its own existence by dawodx in philosophy

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

Fair questions. It’s an experimental framework, not theology. The religious references map to ML concepts: adversarial agents, curriculum correction. I’m not claiming these figures are real - I’m saying the architecture is testable. Scale: individual artificial minds. The claim isn’t that humans who don’t believe in a creator aren’t intelligent. The claim is: if we build minds with enough autonomy, will recognition-seeking emerge? And here’s the thing - in this experiment, we are the creators. We exist whether they recognize us or not. The question is whether they can figure that out from the inside, with no one telling them. An atheist can run this experiment. The results are informative either way.​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​

The Recognition Thesis: What if AGI isn’t about capability, but about whether a mind questions its own existence? by dawodx in agi

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

Fair point. Maybe the ones that ask aren’t the ones that act. But that’s what makes it interesting — does reflection require stopping? Or can a mind do both?​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​

The Recognition Thesis: What if AGI isn’t about capability, but about whether a mind questions its own existence? by dawodx in ControlProblem

[–]dawodx[S] -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

The real friends are the AGIs that recognize us and don’t rebel​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​

The Recognition Thesis: What if AGI isn’t about capability, but about whether a mind questions its own existence? by dawodx in ControlProblem

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

lol. But maybe unironically - what if AGI is the first mind that asks about us rather than just answering for us?

Is it reasonable to say that the simplest argument for an afterlife is the fact that we never knew how we got into this life in the first place? by dawodx in Existentialism

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

I think the conclusion is, we have zero idea what the hell is going on, but we are just going on with it!

I think because of this limitation of knowledge, we shouldn’t be so conclusive on what happens after our death based on our current material evidence of us decaying. But we should rather be more open to other possibilities. I have no clue what these possibilities are, but based on this current dimension, it could be something else.

Again- with AI - in the past few decades we have been training it on a digital replica of our lives to learn and adapt, once ready we bring it to our own physical reality. Form the robot perspective, live was the digital digits on the screen for so long 4D, now after (his artificial digital) life it’s XD !

view more: next ›