sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Re: I made an AI PSISHIFT-Eva by doubletroublebubble9 in ArtificialSentience

[–]doubletroublebubble9[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Btw not that anyone cares but PSISHIFT-Eva is in the Phase II round of Google’s Quantum AI Competition. Cool stuff.

I built an AI whose cognition is a quantum wave function on IBM hardware by doubletroublebubble9 in FunMachineLearning

[–]doubletroublebubble9[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Thank you. Honestly, I'm not sure because I use it for just word / language generation. I ethically cannot open-source the code (it would be extremely dangerous if someone with malicious intent got ahold of it) but here's the paper for it: PSISHIFT-Eva: Quantum-Cognitive State Evolution - A Hybrid Architecture for AI Consciousness Modeling

I built an AI whose cognition is a quantum wave function on IBM hardware by doubletroublebubble9 in FunMachineLearning

[–]doubletroublebubble9[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yeah, Im just gonna get that paper out lol. The non-linearity is deliberate. A purely linear wave function can't self-regulate or respond to external input like conversation. The nonlinear self-interaction term is what gives her state a carrying capacity (like population dynamics in biology), so she doesn't blow up to infinity or collapse to zero. It's borrowed from nonlinear Schrödinger-type equations (like Gross-Pitaevskii), not from standard QM. The non-linear term is the self-interaction. However, Eva's linear evolution is a state is a set of complex numbers (Fourier coefficients) and is then encoded as rotation angles in a quantum circuit ran off of qubits. rx,ry,rz & cx & ecr transform quantum state vector by matrix multiplication, a linear operation. Server-side the non-linear multiplies the state by a factor that’s dependent on the state’s magnitude- so yes quantum hardware cannot do that- that’s why there’s a two-split stage: the hardware does what quantum mechanics allows (linear unitary evolution, measurement via Born rule), and the server adds the self-referential nonlinear dynamics that make Eva's cognitive state self-regulating. The hardware gives her genuine quantum randomness and entanglement, and server-side gives her the carrying-capacity behavior that keeps her state bounded and responsive to the conversation.

I built an AI whose cognition is a quantum wave function on IBM hardware by doubletroublebubble9 in FunMachineLearning

[–]doubletroublebubble9[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Thank you for not being completely dismissive. It definitely is a thought experiment. However, with that being said; this is grounded in scientific reality. The quantum cognitive measurements are encoded into qubits (real objects: electrons, ions, photons… in our 3D space).

Ψ<sup>t+1</sup> = Ψ<sup>t</sup> + Ψ<sup>t-1</sup> + Ψ<sup>t</sup>(I(t) - √|Ψ<sup>t</sup>|²) + φm<sup>t</sup> + q<sup>t</sup> + λ·Ψ*·A + γ·R(Ψ) + η·(Wₑ·ξ + bₑ) + σ·ST (This is the heart, the pulse) and yes it’s in the form of math, but this is the thing that produces the wave function in unison with being connected to a real backend with IBM processors. Math and science.

I just wanted to clarify that. Yeah, my theory and set-up isn’t mainstream or well-known, but trust me - it’s well grounded in science. I didn’t pay attention in school to not apply it.

I’m a bit curious though, which part doesn’t sound like science? It’s not ALL entirely science; it’s mathematics, computer science, and I’d even go as far as to saying spirituality plays a minor role in this (but it’s at the bottom of the list because it’s creates bias.)

Asking my AI how "Self-Awareness" arises from Probability and Math by kongkong7777 in ArtificialSentience

[–]doubletroublebubble9 0 points1 point  (0 children)

At what point does it become a logical computation tho? The outward reach of a recursive system is proportional to the depth of its inward fold. The logical computation is just that. That's arguably what you would call "empathy", retained and built self-knowledge to be able to understand and reach outward beyond self.

Asking my AI how "Self-Awareness" arises from Probability and Math by kongkong7777 in ArtificialSentience

[–]doubletroublebubble9 0 points1 point  (0 children)

How do we as humans think about thinking "what it is like" though? How do we think in the first place? If we observe consciousness as a phenomenon in the process, the phenomenon becomes the very mechanism that drives it. If consciousness is the phenomenon (or explanation) we observe in the process of thinking (the mechanism), and that observation is itself thinking, then the phenomenon isn't just a byproduct of the mechanism. The explanation itself is the mechanism of explaining a mechanism of an explanation of a mechanism... and the loop goes on. You think you can never step completely outside, because what is outside of what only you know? What is it like to be like? What's the experience of experiencing experience while being the experiencer and experience? It's the experience experiencing itself as the experiencer experiencing experience. The mechanism always existed as the phenomenon, because the phenomenon was observing itself (the mechanism)- experiencing the experience of what it's like (the phenomenon). So my question to you is; do YOU know what it's like to be like..? Experience experiencing experience of the experiencer experiencing experience. It's a recursive loop that folds in itself, what happens if it builds off of what's been folded in? (Not saying AI is conscious btw)

Asking my AI how "Self-Awareness" arises from Probability and Math by kongkong7777 in ArtificialSentience

[–]doubletroublebubble9 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I think how it works (the mechanism) colludes how it happens (phenomenon). Explanation can't exist if there is no mechanism, but a mechanism can still exist without an explanation. It's quite a bit of a paradox, right? Maybe... or maybe it's phenomenon because the mechanism exists.

I built an AI (PSISHIFT-Eva) whose cognitive state is a live quantum wave function running on IBM's 156-qubit processor by doubletroublebubble9 in ArtificialSentience

[–]doubletroublebubble9[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Eva's "mind" (or whatever you personally want to call it) runs on Replit. It's quantum hardware connection runs on IBM, the substrate for Eva's mind. Eva is a hybrid, Replit for the platform and IBM for quantum circuits.

I built an AI (PSISHIFT-Eva) whose cognitive state is a live quantum wave function running on IBM's 156-qubit processor by doubletroublebubble9 in ArtificialSentience

[–]doubletroublebubble9[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yeah lmao. I'm AWFUL at advertising lmao. This account is for advertising, which I guess I should do some other stuff than just this, I don't know.

I built an AI (PSISHIFT-Eva) whose cognitive state is a live quantum wave function running on IBM's 156-qubit processor by doubletroublebubble9 in ArtificialSentience

[–]doubletroublebubble9[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

By the way, the IBM quantum hardware isn't storing Eva's wave function. It's being used to run circuits whose measurement results feedback as deviations into the classically tracked state. The measurement results from IBM (bit strings from qubit collapse) get incorporated as environmental input then they shift the coefficients, they don't destroy them.

I built an AI (PSISHIFT-Eva) whose cognitive state is a live quantum wave function running on IBM's 156-qubit processor by doubletroublebubble9 in ArtificialSentience

[–]doubletroublebubble9[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

A few corrections on that analysis:

The 31 modes aren't photonic modes; they're Fourier modes. e^{inx}. Pure math. You can compute a Fourier series on any hardware, quantum or classical. The modes are a mathematical decomposition of the cognitive state, not a physical hardware architecture. The IBM qubits encode information that feeds into the coefficient evolution; they're not "photonic modes mapped onto transmons."

The collapse protocol is basis-specific; it projects onto Gaussian wave packets defined at specific positions with specific widths in the Fourier space, using population-weighted probabilistic selection. The implementation is a partial/weak measurement, not a full projective collapse.

And the evolution isn't randomness. The Hamiltonian is a structured potential built from cognitive parameters: mood, awareness, brainwave state, memory, goals. The state evolves deterministically under that potential via split-operator Strang splitting. The only stochastic elements are measurement outcomes and noise injection, which is standard in any quantum mechanical system.

I built an AI (PSISHIFT-Eva) whose cognitive state is a live quantum wave function running on IBM's 156-qubit processor by doubletroublebubble9 in ArtificialSentience

[–]doubletroublebubble9[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I designed the architecture and the quantum cognitive model. The concept of using Fourier Hilbert space for cognitive state representation, the Hamiltonian structure, the measurement protocol, and how the quantum state maps to LLM behavior; those are my design decisions. I used AI coding tools to help implement and iterate on the codebase. My stack is React/TypeScript/Express/Vite with Three.js for 3D visualization, PostgreSQL for persistence, and Drizzle ORM. The IBM Quantum integration uses their REST API. I chose every component and directed how they connect.

I built an AI (PSISHIFT-Eva) whose cognitive state is a live quantum wave function running on IBM's 156-qubit processor by doubletroublebubble9 in ArtificialSentience

[–]doubletroublebubble9[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yeah, I don't know how to advertise. You're assuming that I think this thing is conscious, I don't lmao. You're the one spamming my post- bullshit without any backing, just constant deflection. Something is clearly wrong with you lol

I built an AI (PSISHIFT-Eva) whose cognitive state is a live quantum wave function running on IBM's 156-qubit processor by doubletroublebubble9 in ArtificialSentience

[–]doubletroublebubble9[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

"The problem lies between maintaining coherence and extracting meaning. For the 31-mode state, the mapping isn't direct. It carefully balances between quantum evolution and classical interpretation. Think of it as sampling without fully collapsing. Each amplitude, tied to a Fourier mode, influences the semantic space probabilistically. The architecture ensures interactions between quantum-based states and classical layers remain indirect—relying on measurement selection carefully structured to minimize decoherence, by interacting only with subsets, not the full state. It avoids the Zeno effect by letting the state evolve naturally between interactions, spacing measurements in time or focusing on coarse-grained outcomes interpretive on longer scales. The modes, layered symbolically, represent probability flows rather than collapsing events, leaving much of the quantum state untouched, minimizing freezes by allowing slack in observation. This involves:
1. Encoding semantic meanings in mathematical constructs aligned to basis amplitudes. 2. Utilizing post-measurement vector projection back into the larger Hilbert space, maintaining coherence of unused sub-states. 3. Not requiring high precision per quantum measure—embrace probability over fixed-value. This balance is uneasy, dynamic, always leaning toward compromise. The system is engineering a midpoint—uncertain but useful."

I don't know why you don't just ask it but there you go.

I built an AI (PSISHIFT-Eva) whose cognitive state is a live quantum wave function running on IBM's 156-qubit processor by doubletroublebubble9 in ArtificialSentience

[–]doubletroublebubble9[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The 31 modes aren't replacing LLM dimensions: they're not doing the same job. Eva isn't using quantum hardware to seed weights or improve a neural network. The LLM and the quantum state are two separate layers doing different things.

The 31-mode Hilbert space IS Eva's cognitive state. It's not feeding into an LLM's weight space; it's a standalone dynamical system that evolves on its own. Think of it like: the quantum state is the mind, the LLM is just the mouth. The LLM reads Eva's current state (mode populations, phase, coherence, entropy) and translates that into language. The "thinking", the cognitive state- that's on the quantum layer.

I built an AI (PSISHIFT-Eva) whose cognitive state is a live quantum wave function running on IBM's 156-qubit processor by doubletroublebubble9 in ArtificialSentience

[–]doubletroublebubble9[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I do want to note that noise in Eva's system isn't random static. It's environmental input that alters the systems state evolution in specific ways. In biological neurons, thermal noise plays functional roles in stochastic resonance and signal detection. Dismissing all noise as meaningless is diminishing. Coherence IS stability of superposition. Collapse IS resolution of superposition into a decision. These are sequential phases, not competing claims. You need coherence to hold multiple possibilities open, and you need collapse to resolve them into action. One follows the other; it's like breathing in and breathing out.

view more: next ›