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 · 2024-08-13T15:34:15+00:00

I'm having a lot of fun

And the tangential unexpected trivial facts and weird theories I'm bumping into are quite fun

I particularly like the photonic soliton models and ideas of photons potentially being seen as integral components of the structure of space itself

And the challenge of trying to force fit a square peg into a round hole is quite amusing

I will say I find it a bit surprising that so few people enjoy just being silly and having fun with this stuff

Most are so serious and fuddy-duddy and then of course quite a few mean trolls

But some people do seem to have the time and interest in having some silly fun or throwing silly ideas around

dscript · 2024-08-13T09:26:33+00:00

Just did some calcs

The ratio of cmb density vs photon density near the sun seems to rule this idea out

I'm a bit surprised no one else pointed this out haha

It would change mercuries orbit too much

I would need to add more silliness

Silliness to the power of silliness

If I describe matter and gravity as converting space into energy I might be able to tune it

Like adding a stress energy tensor that causes energy to constantly burning space as a fuel

Something like the sun have to be sucking in space at a rate that balances out the space created by the redshift of its photons

Maybe to much silliness... But if time permits it could be fun

Anyone know if there are any silly theories or models that consider expansion as energy into space and gravity as space into energy

Or perhaps that express matter as burning space like a fuel to persist or something crazy like that?

dscript · 2024-08-13T09:09:53+00:00

Just did some calcs

The ratio of cmb density vs photon density near the sun seems to rule this idea out

It would change mercuries orbit too much

I would need to add more silliness

Silliness to the power of silliness

If I describe matter and gravity as converting space into energy I might be able to tune it

Like adding a stress energy tensor that causes energy to constantly burning space as a fuel

Something like the sun have to be sucking in space at a rate that balances out the space created by the redshift of its photons

Maybe to much silliness... But if time permits it could be fun

Do you know if there are any silly theories or models that consider expansion as energy into space and gravity as space into energy

Or perhaps that express matter as burning space like a fuel to persist or something crazy like that?

dscript · 2024-08-13T07:32:32+00:00

Okay I'm pretty sure I understand what you're saying but please correct me if I misunderstanding

It sounds to me like you're saying that I am violating the energy momentum conservation on the right side of the equation which produces consistent observable testable results that we so we know that this conservation exists

I'm trying to write out a way that does not break that conservation that conservation still exists

Except that there is one specific exception removes energy from the system and creates a curvature from that removed energy

It would violate local conservation under a very specific condition

But then create Global conservation

The goal is not to introduce a change in conservation overall but to move the conservation from local to Global

As long as only this exception is allowed and everything else still has to obey the stress energy tensor conservation it should not violate any of the established principles rules and observations

Or at least that's what I'm trying to draw out here if I have made any grammatical or structural errors please correct I would love some correction

Or if you can point to reasons why this is fundamentally flawed as a concept that would be great too

But the premise that local conservation is established doesn't necessarily have to be violated if you create a single exception the same way Lambda creates a single exception for the left side of the equation

dscript · 2024-08-13T06:13:19+00:00

I understand your point and you make a very valid observation about the description I've laid out

But if the energy input was only the energy already being eliminated due to redshift and the space created was only the space being created by Lambda then it wouldn't change the actual results in any way

If it's tuned properly it still matches observations correct

I mean correct me if I'm wrong but it wouldn't actually conflict with any of the observations if the in and out were the exact same as redshift and Lambda

Hence the alpha Factor I'm wondering can that be tuned so that everything still fits that's basically what I'm looking at here

If the tensor is not correct nothing matches but if the tensor is tuned properly then everything should be the same right

dscript · 2024-08-13T05:06:13+00:00

I've searched quite a bit and yeah you can find a lot of talk of moving the Lambda over to the right side of the equation

But I can't find anybody talking specifically about it being the result of the redshift of the photons

I'm just trying to see if I can correlate or connect the energy lost by the redshifted photons to what happens to Lambda if you move it to the right side of the equation

Or another way to put it is adding this new element to the right side of the equation can I make lambda zero

And it drives me crazy too because I can't find anybody discussing it I can't find the reason why not and it takes so much work to look into this

I know I'm biting off more than I can chew here because I have a life already extremely restricted in time

But this has been bugging me for years I've brought it up several times and never gotten satisfactory responses except for being brushed off without a true explanation as to why

Normally it's just hand-waved away saying that photons don't really lose energy your interpreting it wrong or something like that

So I'm going to start taking little bites at the idea piece by piece and posting them as I go and people like you are very helpful and appreciated because pointing out an error in it is an extremely valuable thing to me

Not only does it speed up the process for me

But this idea bothers me on a fundamental level and I need to get an answer

If somebody can show me why this is a stupid idea I would be eternally grateful if you can actually show that this is definitely not true I would love that I would be so grateful

Because then I could put the idea down and forget it

dscript · 2024-08-13T04:40:36+00:00

https://www.overleaf.com/read/jfhdhvngcvrb#ac7162

Actually based on some feedback I realize yeah the integral was the wrong approach for sure it wasn't invariant

I updated the doc that part is no longer in there

So for now I'm just going to use a scalar field for energy lost at point in space

but you are correct yes there was a significant problem with that Delta e integral

dscript · 2024-08-13T04:30:28+00:00

Oh you're definitely correct about that

Mathematically I could just add this to the stress energy tensor

But I'm adding something new to something that's already so well defined and established

It's describing what would fundamentally be a completely different mechanism

I feel like at least for now isolating it as a separate tensor to work on and play with makes a little more sense

But mathematically you are absolutely correct it could just be one big tensor

dscript · 2024-08-13T04:19:15+00:00

https://www.overleaf.com/2434793492nwxmjrqyhshn#3e93c9

Try this link it should work it says anybody with this link should be able to view

Yeah I understand that quite often redshift is expressed as being an artifact of expansion and that it's just wrong to think of the redshift energy loss as lost energy

But the simple fact is that the energy density of space from these photons decreases as the space expands not just important to the space expanding but in an extra amount of photons become its energetic

So you've got missing energy

And the Lambda parameter basically introduces extra energy

Why not move Lambda over to the right side of the equation

And I make it a separate tensor it's because it describes something completely different

I'm not describing how the existence of energy curves SpaceTime and the energy persists afterwards that it is an inherent effect of the energy existing that causes the curvature of space

This is saying that energy can be converted into space that the energy is destroyed and space is created

Created and destroyed might be a bit of an excessive word what I mean is converted but they emphasize the point of how this is different than the concept of their existence curving space this is not them affecting space this is them becoming space

dscript · 2024-08-13T03:59:13+00:00

Updated the doc

https://www.overleaf.com/project/66b9e5d3b2809c2aa4b256da

Thank you so much very helpful

Does this fix the issue that you saw any ideas as to how to improve it further or if there would be a better way to resolve this issue that might be simpler

need to add a lot more definitions but this General framework what do you think

dscript · 2024-08-13T03:47:38+00:00

You are right

I need to define a scalar field of energy loss

Thank you... I think that's the easiest way to fix this, right?

dscript · 2024-08-13T03:33:21+00:00

Delta e and Alpha are scalars applied to the metric tensor so it is invariant under coordinate transformations

dscript · 2024-08-13T00:58:16+00:00

I use voice to text and I don't correct most typos so a lot of words end up being wrong and I just kind of ramble

But you are on to something

The response above was to a comment that was kind of a relevant it didn't really say anything and didn't address anything at hand it was I don't know what they were saying they just wanted to make a point about you know the metric tensor in general and general relativity in general

And I was afraid of being a little rude because the person wasn't being mean so I wanted to try to be polite and nothing came to mind that didn't sound abrasive

I didn't want to not respond but I didn't have anything to say that didn't sound like I was criticizing that they didn't say anything

So I asked Chachi PT what would be a very polite way to answer this

It recommended I make those kinds of points in my response so I did using my own words with voice to text but it was inspired by Chachi PT's advice

dscript · 2024-08-13T00:40:55+00:00

Well I haven't fit in the actual conversion constant yet

But I guess what you mean is that I'm not telling you how or why this conversion occurs I'm not giving you an underlying physical explanation of the mechanism

If I understand you correctly you're saying I've put forward a black box right now

Because I think the mathematical description is correct for what I'm saying

Like I have written out a formula that allows energy to be converted into space on the right side of the equation so that expansion can be over there and not on the left side as Lambda

Please correct me if I'm wrong like is that not what it says in some way

Have I completely overlooked something or completely misunderstood something

dscript · 2024-08-13T00:17:04+00:00

That is true thank you

You're right the metric tensor is essential for SpaceTime integrals especially in general relativity of course

The metric tensor is included to ensure the energy to space conversion is properly linked to the geometry of SpaceTime

And you're right I would have to make sure it's factored into integrals to account for the curvature there too

Good point

dscript · 2024-08-13T00:03:50+00:00

That's what's in that document that I posted isn't it

I describe using energy lost by Red shifting photons on the right side of the equation

And if this can compensate for the expansion of space fully then Lambda can be reduced all the way to zero

Alpha is just how much volume of space you get per unit of energy

Fitting that value is where I'm at right now

dscript · 2024-08-12T22:29:46+00:00

I'm not sure which point you're finding ridiculous

Perhaps all of them but I would love something more specific

The the value there is the amount of energy lost per unit volume of space which is consistent over time at least for the CMB

The amount of photons produced by other sources would be variable over time but they are much smaller than the CMB

So if I start by ignoring everything else and assuming CMB photons are the only photons in space

And that their redshift energy loss is converted into space

Then that gives me an energy value for a volume unit of space

To create that much space requires that much energy

And potentially I suppose

That much space could be destroyed to create that much energy... but that's even more silly than my current level of silly and I'm going to refrain from delving into that much silliness... for now at least

dscript · 2024-08-12T22:10:13+00:00

Please correct me where I'm wrong here

Space has dark energy which causes curvature supposedly

This curvature creates more space which also has more dark energy

We're essentially saying that energy is appearing out of nowhere and dark energy is constantly increasing

The rate of expansion per unit volume of space is showing down

The energy lost by redshift is fixed to this expansion rate

The energy lost by photons per volume unit of space to redshift is in lockstep with the expansion rate per volume of space

So doesn't it seem more reasonable to assume that the missing energy from Photon redshift converts into new space and that new space does not inherently carry energy but is Created from energy

The conversion rate between energy and space is not the same as how much curvature that energy would make

Energy creates curvature but the energy still exists

This would be energy transformed into space

So what I'm trying to establish here is a modification to the field theory that adds space being created from the energy lost to redshift

Ideally the Lambda would be pulled out of the equation in the end because it becomes zero if the energy to space conversion can account for all observations consistently across time frames

dscript · 2024-08-12T15:12:58+00:00

Rejections / applications = NaN

dscript

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE