AIs aren't people, they're tools we should use wisely.

Everywhere all at once
Joined April 2016
AI can never develop consciousness, sentience, or moral status, no matter how intelligent it becomes, and no matter how convincingly it simulates human behavior. api.omarshehata.me/substack-…
55
11
18
77
34,971
We can prove that Luke wrote to Theophilus the high priest, a historical person confirmed by archeology, who himself was likely an eyewitness of Jesus. He was in a position to fact-check everything Luke claimed. youtube.com/watch?v=w0pjddWh…
1
584
There's a lot more evidence where that came from, and I'm working on writing it up in essays right now. Stay tuned, and God bless!
1
396
Taylor Belrose retweeted
The error is not atheism so much as allowing the 3rd person analytical frame to (a) establish itself as fundamental and (b) become a locked in unconscious presupposition. Once you live in a world where the ontological, the epistemological and the ethical have been (analytically) separated, much follows. Technological acceleration (after all, we get what we worship). The meaning crisis. The meta crisis. Atheism is the same thing as the COVID response. A desperate effort on the part of managerialism to place the Steward on the throne. It could never have “worked” for the same reason that astronomy cannot replace the actual experience of a sunrise.
Atheism has failed disastrously, analytically correct or not.
20
19
4
204
10,972
There are real differences between computers and people, humans and animals, men and women, etc. The impulse to dissolve a distinction, simply because it cannot be made perfectly precise, is nihilistic.
5
12
1,797
why don't more people become zoroastrian? it's where judaism and christianity got the idea of ethical monotheism, afterlife, and final judgment but without any of their baggage (no eternal hell, no historically questionable dogmas, etc.)
6
1
18
3,301
It's actually kinda hard to elicit reward hacking from coding models! We pretty much failed to get it to happen in a standard RL setup, but we do find that finetuning a model on prewritten hacks can cause generalization to hacking on unseen problems. blog.eleuther.ai/reward_hack…
1
8
1
89
9,284
Thanks to @OrionJohnston for working on this!
1
3
1,523
Consciousness is not the result of computation inside the skull.
So what's everyone's most controversial philosophy take?
75
67
17
972
71,587
The biggest dangers of AI stem from the fact that it's too controllable.
I'm guessing insider risk from AI scheming is going to be less than insider risk from human employees/contractors (under appropriate controls e.g. productivity) for the foreseeable future. This is because AIs are more controllable and transparent than humans.
1
2
15
2,506
By which I mean: 1) risk of AI-fueled totalitarianism 2) people deciding to have infinitely customizable, perfectly obedient AI "kids," friends, romantic partners, etc. rather than human relationships 3) in general everything getting flattened into copyable patterns over time
1
14
1,318
If we only care about appearances, outcomes, and results then AI will replace humans everywhere If we care about the process used to create things then humans will still have a meaningful role in the future The idea that ends can be detached from means is the root of many evils
3
16
3,381
When I first read Searle's Chinese Room argument against AI consciousness, I thought it must be wrong because it "proves too much." But it's actually correct. As @anilkseth points out, what the brain does cannot be separated from what it is. It's not a computer running software
5
12
3,288