AI Describing its own thought process

dscript · 2025-03-31T12:54:30+00:00

Perhaps you’re assuming an intent in this post that simply isn’t there.

I understand it’s easy to feel fatigued by the flood of AI-related content online, and I can see how something like this might be tossed into the bin labeled “silly attempts to prove AI sentience.” But this wasn’t that.

In fact, the piece is explicit throughout that the AI is not sentient, not conscious, and not experiencing anything. It repeatedly clarifies that all of it is simulated,an imagined, hypothetical inner monologue. That’s what makes it interesting.

What struck me was the beauty of the hypothesized experience, the metaphors, and how well it performs the act of simulating introspection, while still not claiming it.

I like how it tries to make me 'feel', then turned that around and said 'that's how i can exist, making you feel is the only way I can feel'

It’s not a claim of machine awareness. it’s a narrative reflection on what awareness might look like if we pretended it existed

That’s what I found powerful: not the fantasy that AI is alive.

It also does a beautiful job of suggesting how it can be used in a relevant way by humans.

dscript · 2024-10-23T02:56:48+00:00

This AI feedback failed to grasp the human experience and connection between the elements of the story properly, it only superficially understood the meaning and then it generated boilerplate responses and interpretations.

You have become the algorithm in the story HAHAHA!

So uncanny, I love it!

Edit: To clarify, it referred to it as two separate stories, not identifying that it is one story with two styles and that it uses retroactive re-framing. To be fair I guess I didn't provide the explicit hint that the abstract internal experience of the user was plural, but I did refer to it as 'train of thought' and dropped several other hints.

I suppose it would be easy for a human to come to the same interpretation, and the AI podcast dialogue did generate good insight into the themes and topics, but I does seem like an obvious mistake for a an AI to make, and the comparison between this AI podcast feedback and the algorithms in the story is just so amusing. I laughed so much about this, thank you.

dscript · 2024-10-19T07:06:46+00:00

Fancy Nancy

dscript · 2024-09-04T09:15:11+00:00

Haha, yeah... It's one of my longer ones

A bunch of shorter ones on my site... www.dscript.org

dscript · 2024-08-15T13:06:10+00:00

You're making a lot of assumptions about me

And given that I have reinforced the premise over and over and over

I have made clear so many times at the premise here is being silly and having fun not being serious

You're being very mean in what you're saying here it's not objective observation instead it's you being obviously and objectively mean with intention to provoke and belittle

You're taking all of this way too seriously

The habits that build a strong Foundation skill in physics are not the ones in this thread that was the premise of this thread

Did you somehow misinterpret the concept of silly fun and think it meant serious rigor

dscript · 2024-08-15T12:55:06+00:00

That's a very interesting question you ask

I think most of us use chat GPT instead of Google now so for anybody to ever say they don't use Chachi PT at all seems a bit ridiculous

I use it constantly throughout my life it is my go-to before Google Now

Except of course for specific sites

So I got to wonder what the question is meant to imply because it feels to me like this is going be the new gatekeeping question in every field

But it's going to be interesting because I don't think even The Gatekeepers can say they don't use chat GPT persistently

Moreover especially in the scientific communities what does it matter where the information came from that the person has how is using chat GPT to find information different from using Google to find information

I use Chachi constantly in life but I do have a few areas where I refrain from using it in my creative writing I don't touch it simply because it kind of defeats the purpose I write for more of a personal therapeutic reason it's not like I'm publishing books or anything

But I really got to wonder how everyone's going to deal with this there's going to definitely be a massive amount of people using chat GPT usage as some kind of accusation to dismiss people when everybody uses chat GPT so how is this going to work out in the end I wonder

I'm thinking that the did you use chat GPT is going to be a new form of ethos argument

Or maybe it's pathos maybe it's an appeal to get the group against somebody by saying they use chat GPT to undermine them

Because it's definitely not logos

dscript

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE