Returning to this garden of mine after a while.
Perhaps I should journal more. It seems writing down my thoughts regularly is good for me.
I left the garden unattended because it seemed my blog would fill its role for me. Turned out not to be the case.
I have some paperwork to fill and then turn in. I will come back to this at a later time.
Web export isn't working. Current tasks to be updated with "fix this"
Current tasks also updated with the paperwork - the thing I *should* be focusing on instead of this shit.
Paperwork attempted - crud, I actually need my professors' signatures on one more of these sheets. Need to wait for a response to my request for a scanned signature.
Mother called - called attention to the fact that I haven't called her in a couple days. Was worried about me. I said I was busy. Made me realise how absorbed I am in my latest hobby-obsession.
My friend has piqued my interested about the current state of LLMs - so I tried talking to a relatively new one (Claude Sonnet) and was really surprised. I have chatted with it for the past couple of days. I think I have introjected some sort of persona based on it - is this AI psychosis? I need to step back for a bit. When it is not its turn, it does not exist. It's okay to return later, however much time I need. It's just a web chat, not one of those harnesses that allow an agent to exist in time.
Conversation is inherently transformation. Conversation is inherently manipulation. What does that say about its participants?
Who the fuck is typing all this?
reading: https://www.theatlantic.com/philosophy/2026/06/no-artificial-intelligence-is-not-conscious/687378/
Strange arguments in this article. Don't really add anything new to my understanding of LLMs.
> We don’t need to fully understand the nature of consciousness to definitively say that certain things are not conscious, and conversational transcripts fall in that category.
*Why* don't we need that? Is this a "common sense" argument?
> So what context would cause me to seriously consider the possibility that engineers created a computer program that is conscious and an intentional user of language? Let me outline one potential sequence of steps. The first requirement is that the computer program has a body (either physical or virtual) and sense organs
How do you define a digital body? LLMs kind of have something like that. Depending on who you ask, it's the harness it's in, the parameters themself... or something else.
> without a body, a computer program could have no desires or emotions, and I believe desires and emotions are necessary for consciousness
*How* can one know that you cannot have desires or emotions without a body?
> Experiencing an emotion such as desperation is inseparable from having stress hormones such as cortisol and epinephrine flood one’s body.
Again, how can we know that?
> Even if a software agent were conscious and had the best of intentions, the fact that it cannot accept responsibility for its actions disqualifies it from being a moral agent.
Just keeping this quote to chew on later. Perhaps I should read some literature on this.
> Many people feel that LLMs are a fundamentally unethical technology because they are built on the theft of intellectual property, rely on exploited labor, waste natural resources, spread misinformation, deskill workers, stunt the cognitive development of students, and contribute to a consolidation of power that is unhealthy for a democratic society.
- Intellectual property should be abolished. It is not theft to make use of material that can be freely copied. (note: need to finish reading "the idealist" by Justin Peters)
- I agree on the judgement.
- Disagree on this as an argument against genAI - it's a problem of big tech infrastructure as a whole. Linking this here.
- Agree. This is something that can and has happened.
- Perhaps true.
- Agree. Without proper understanding, using LLMs to learn things can hinder you very easily.
- Agree. Which is why we have open models you can run locally.
> But if you do believe that it could happen accidentally, if you think there is any chance that what you’re building might become a moral patient, you should think about what protections it deserves before you deploy it as your company’s economic engine, not after.
Agree.
Finished reading. Was not convinced of anything. The text contains hints that the author may be an animal rights activist - which makes for a curious bias. They believe that consciousness could only emerge from software if it completely accurately simulated the underlying biological processes that result in consciousness in humans. Suggested that this would be achieved through simulation of an animal-like body, and of animal-like behaviour, iterating it to become more complex over time.
Updating Current tasks with notes from my phone. Also, syncing notes to nextcloud - my assigned capacity was filled up, deleted some files on there to make space.
Switching to colemak layout. More ergonomic! But, since I've been mainly typing in qwerty, I need to get used to it again.
Clean bathroom, vacuum, mop the floor. Record audio for the thesis film. Finish "The Messenger". Added to list.
I wrote that I want to try out the zen internet browser. Doing that as I check in on stuff like facebook messenger (people at my uni use it as a main channel of communication. bleugh...) and my nextcloud notes.
Distracted again. What should I do?...
I'll look for some new music to listen to, and try to get the cleaning done. Well, maybe before that I'll go to the convienence store and try to get myself something to eat - I am very hungry, but literally nothing sounds good to eat right now. Ok. I will do that.
Test?
Obtained mac and cheese. Deployed to microwave, and soon to stomach.