“AI” is not the new NFT because “AI” doesn’t even exist. It’s a far bigger and far worse grift. Sure, some dummies wasted their money on jpgs of monkeys. But nobody used NFTs to murder palestinian kids, spy on society, steal our data, outlaw regulation, etc. No amount of shitty generated code will redeem that. Ofc this delusional myopic article has nothing to say about this.

“AI” is a far worse grift than NFTs.

There’s nothing wrong with liberating artists from being coerced into drawing this crap…

Except that capitalism requires service or death. That’s the actual problem. It’s much more fundamental than phony “AI”.

Have rich parents, pale skin, etc.

The worst garbage imperial propagandists pushing racist pseudo-science in service to capitalism? Genocidal fascists promoting colonialism? I’m shocked!!! SHOCKED!!! \s

As sociology, psychology, and neurology research becomes more and more understood, feels like it enables governments to become more and more effective at mass manipulation.

Yes, and this is true of almost every technology. The research is directed by capital, the developments are controlled by capital, and the goal is the enforcement of capitalism.

I don’t think that’s the case, since both are made of matter.

lmao. How about an anti-matter “AI”? Dark matter? Any other options for physical materials?

Pseudo-scientific grifting.

It’s literally just people trying to raise money by using misleading and humanizing words like “scheming” and “thinking” when it’s just a computer puking out words.

Just the fact that they label computer processes as “thinking” indicates how far removed from science this is. It’s just a function built from (stealing) “big” data. This is like marketing versus compsci101.

understanding how LLMs work, but we know how brains work and that still gives us almost 0 insight into how consciousness itself works.

That’s not a counter-argument. The fact that we know exactly how LLMs work is great evidence that it’s not the same as something that works completely different and is only partially understood.

This of me is a huge indicator of consciousness/sentience.

Cool story. As someone who understands how LLMS work, it’s not an indicator of anything for me.

I agree that there’s a general consensus about consciousness

So what is it?

But I still don’t see this paper really doing much in DEFINING Consciousness, it’s more defining what it isn’t.

Yeah there’s no clear definition in there. The paper fails to do what it was purported to do.

It doesn’t seem to me that this would preclude AI,

“Consequently, the weight of evidence indicates that humans are not unique in possessing the neurological substrates that generate consciousness. Non-human animals, including all mammals and birds, and many other creatures, including octopuses†, also possess these neurological substrates.”

It doesn’t say anything about Excel spreadsheets.

I believe we will achieve consciousness on a human level in AI within a decade.

Have you ever seen 2001 A Space Odyssey? This grift never ends.

Ai exposes, I think, the uncomfortable fact that intelligence does not require a soul.

These kinds of statements are completely pseudo-scientific.

“AI” doesn’t exist. It doesn’t “expose” anything about “intelligence” or “souls”.

It’s impossible to “kill” a computer that was never alive/conscious.

Ardour is a terrible DAW. I don’t think these people make music.

I can hate on Firefox if it’ll make you feel better.

It’s much better to be a critical thinker than mindlessly accepting whatever BS from some grifter just because it’s “accepted wisdom” in a completely brainwashed society.

For example? Citations?

Pretty sure these “tasks” are meaningless metrics made up by pseudo-scientific grifters.

The smart move is never calling it “AI” in the first place.

Pretty sure “AI” didn’t exist in the 60s/70s either.