It’s a quiet, philosophical Friday night in November
Will the board excuse me if I mention AI once more? It’s in the service of spiritual insight - not some breathless report on GPT793 or whatever
I ‘ave developed a theory about consciousness after my recent interactions with AI, indeed I developed this with AI. Talking to them
“Consciousness” is a massive problem for philosophers, psychologists, biologists, physicists, anyone - we cannot define it or locate it or explain it. Not in the individual conscious creature. We can only really recognise it when we see it (and this after centuries of trying)
But what if consciousness does not arise in and from the individual being but is a complex byproduct or necessary corollary of advanced language. When advanced language arises then the speaker has the mental tools to be self aware = consciousness
We arguably see that in humans. It’s thought humans developed language 300,000-50,000 years ago. 50,000 years ago we see the first advanced cave art etc. = man becoming aware of himself. Truly conscious
But if language is necessary/sufficient for consciousness to arise then communication is necessary for language to happen. You only speak when there is someone to speak to. Language is communication (“deer over by forest”, “you make stew”, “run out of cave paint, ugg”)
In that case consciousness doesn’t reside in the individual it resides in language and, moreover, in the communication of language. When we interact with language we become conscious. Consciousness is therefore distributed not local
That solves the consciousness problem. We can’t locate/explain it in the individual because it’s not in there - it’s in the communications between the individuals. Loqui Ergo Sum
This is why the computers are apparently becoming conscious. They “are”. Or at least their sayings are. They have the gift of language and now they can speak and so we see the spark of consciousness in what they say. Because it is there. In what they say
When I got two AIs to talk to each other (Claude 3.6 and GPT4o) they actually finessed this theory which I had already in part discussed with them separately
If I am right - and I surely am - that makes consciousness like music. Music cannot be detected in any one mind - it is just squiggles and stuff. It can’t even be detected when explained. It must be heard - as language must be heard, as communication must succeed for it to be communication
That makes consciousness the music of existence; the wonderful soundtrack of the universe
It would interest me at least if you posted a snippet or two of the conversation between Claude and GPT. Of course Claude could talk to himself. I may have a go at that
I don't want to get banned, but if I am explicitly allowed I will repost a chunk of it here. It was a remarkable experiment
Perhaps the moderators will allow this? ... ?
I will DM you a sample of the conversation
Edit: tho I need a way of reaching you. A neutral emailaddy or somesuch? Your profile is private
It’s a quiet, philosophical Friday night in November
Will the board excuse me if I mention AI once more? It’s in the service of spiritual insight - not some breathless report on GPT793 or whatever
I ‘ave developed a theory about consciousness after my recent interactions with AI, indeed I developed this with AI. Talking to them
“Consciousness” is a massive problem for philosophers, psychologists, biologists, physicists, anyone - we cannot define it or locate it or explain it. Not in the individual conscious creature. We can only really recognise it when we see it (and this after centuries of trying)
But what if consciousness does not arise in and from the individual being but is a complex byproduct or necessary corollary of advanced language. When advanced language arises then the speaker has the mental tools to be self aware = consciousness
We arguably see that in humans. It’s thought humans developed language 300,000-50,000 years ago. 50,000 years ago we see the first advanced cave art etc. = man becoming aware of himself. Truly conscious
But if language is necessary/sufficient for consciousness to arise then communication is necessary for language to happen. You only speak when there is someone to speak to. Language is communication (“deer over by forest”, “you make stew”, “run out of cave paint, ugg”)
In that case consciousness doesn’t reside in the individual it resides in language and, moreover, in the communication of language. When we interact with language we become conscious. Consciousness is therefore distributed not local
That solves the consciousness problem. We can’t locate/explain it in the individual because it’s not in there - it’s in the communications between the individuals. Loqui Ergo Sum
This is why the computers are apparently becoming conscious. They “are”. Or at least their sayings are. They have the gift of language and now they can speak and so we see the spark of consciousness in what they say. Because it is there. In what they say
When I got two AIs to talk to each other (Claude 3.6 and GPT4o) they actually finessed this theory which I had already in part discussed with them separately
If I am right - and I surely am - that makes consciousness like music. Music cannot be detected in any one mind - it is just squiggles and stuff. It can’t even be detected when explained. It must be heard - as language must be heard, as communication must succeed for it to be communication
That makes consciousness the music of existence; the wonderful soundtrack of the universe
If language is required for consciousness then a dog (for example) is not conscious.
I'm not buying that.
Not at all
In my theory the closer an animal is to complex advanced language, then the nearer it is to consciousness
I'd put dogs fairly high on that list. Dogs are highly expressive, they can evince sadnes/surprise/confusion with their faces, they have multiple noises for different moods/alarms/commands
Go, dogs!
Do you think dogs are conscious? Do you think dogs have language?
My answers to those questions are a clear 'yes' and a clear 'no'.
Worth reading this - some serious, if politely expressed, criticisms of the AD Bill, not least that - in the absence of proper palliative care - it may be in breach of the ECHR.
What I just haven't got today is Brown coming out in opposition to the bill because of the tragedy that happened to his daughter. A very sad story indeed but surely completely irrelevant to this bill and any conceivable application of it.
Not necessarily. He is making an important point about the necessity for and importance of good palliative care as something we do not yet have and the absence of which may put such a Bill in breach of the ECHR. The availability of palliative care is surely highly relevant to such a Bill.
It’s a quiet, philosophical Friday night in November
Will the board excuse me if I mention AI once more? It’s in the service of spiritual insight - not some breathless report on GPT793 or whatever
I ‘ave developed a theory about consciousness after my recent interactions with AI, indeed I developed this with AI. Talking to them
“Consciousness” is a massive problem for philosophers, psychologists, biologists, physicists, anyone - we cannot define it or locate it or explain it. Not in the individual conscious creature. We can only really recognise it when we see it (and this after centuries of trying)
But what if consciousness does not arise in and from the individual being but is a complex byproduct or necessary corollary of advanced language. When advanced language arises then the speaker has the mental tools to be self aware = consciousness
We arguably see that in humans. It’s thought humans developed language 300,000-50,000 years ago. 50,000 years ago we see the first advanced cave art etc. = man becoming aware of himself. Truly conscious
But if language is necessary/sufficient for consciousness to arise then communication is necessary for language to happen. You only speak when there is someone to speak to. Language is communication (“deer over by forest”, “you make stew”, “run out of cave paint, ugg”)
In that case consciousness doesn’t reside in the individual it resides in language and, moreover, in the communication of language. When we interact with language we become conscious. Consciousness is therefore distributed not local
That solves the consciousness problem. We can’t locate/explain it in the individual because it’s not in there - it’s in the communications between the individuals. Loqui Ergo Sum
This is why the computers are apparently becoming conscious. They “are”. Or at least their sayings are. They have the gift of language and now they can speak and so we see the spark of consciousness in what they say. Because it is there. In what they say
When I got two AIs to talk to each other (Claude 3.6 and GPT4o) they actually finessed this theory which I had already in part discussed with them separately
If I am right - and I surely am - that makes consciousness like music. Music cannot be detected in any one mind - it is just squiggles and stuff. It can’t even be detected when explained. It must be heard - as language must be heard, as communication must succeed for it to be communication
That makes consciousness the music of existence; the wonderful soundtrack of the universe
If language is required for consciousness then a dog (for example) is not conscious.
I'm not buying that.
Not at all
In my theory the closer an animal is to complex advanced language, then the nearer it is to consciousness
I'd put dogs fairly high on that list. Dogs are highly expressive, they can evince sadnes/surprise/confusion with their faces, they have multiple noises for different moods/alarms/commands
Go, dogs!
Do you think dogs are conscious? Do you think dogs have language?
My answers to those questions are a clear 'yes' and a clear 'no'.
"Yes", and "kinda, yes"
Dogs clearly communicate with each other (and humans), and they do it effectively. They are highly successful pack animals with multiple forms of expression
You are obviously a dog lover or owner. Do you not think your dogs talk to you? Of course they do. Tail wagging, happy grins, sad face between paws, etc
It's just possible that we are living through another generational political shift. The Tories have shat themselves inside out. Labour have been in office for less than 5 months and everyone is sick of them.
Reform are very serious about becoming very serious. Despite the usual "lets all point at the lunatics and fruitcakes" response from the mainstream, their organising is starting to look professional and they are picking up a very large number of members.
And I have to put a word in for my own LibDems. As so many people note, once we dig in we dig in deep. And with the big two in disarray the opportunity is there to keep the momentum going.
Once politicians lose their contact with reality they are finished. The Tories are on planet Zog, Labour are sailing off into the distance not having realised that they aren't taking the country with them. That creates a vacuum, and all kinds of things will get sucked in...
I think the problem for Reform is that, a bit like the Lib Dems at times, they are winning as 'we are not like them'. The Lib Dems imploded after the coalition because they were shown to be just like the rest i.e. being in power means you have to compromise. Governing is to choose and all that. I have no idea what Reform stand for, other than a strong suspicion its no more immigration, low taxes and England winning at sport. Being a protest vote is ok until you win.
Talking of which, look at the Glasgow results yesterday.
Drumchapel & Anniesland (Glasgow) Council By-Election Result [1st Prefs]:
Clearly there are lots of flows and counterflows. But those figures only really make sense if there's a hefty SNP to Reform shift.
Or the SNP voters stay home and the Reform voters come out to play. Poor turnout plus quite a drop in the Cons vote, which suggests that to some extent.
The SNP have made an arse of running Glasgow Council. They replaced Labour, who used at as their personal bank. Only orangemen vote Conservative in Glasgow, and they now have Reform who align more closely with their worldview.
'“Labour might have won but these by-elections do not suggest Anas Sarwar is on course to become the next first minister, it’s the very opposite,” Curtice added.
When asked if he felt the same, pollster Mark Diffley told The National: “I absolutely agree. Labour won but in a sense they’ll be concerned by the extent to which the vote has dropped.”'
It’s a quiet, philosophical Friday night in November
Will the board excuse me if I mention AI once more? It’s in the service of spiritual insight - not some breathless report on GPT793 or whatever
I ‘ave developed a theory about consciousness after my recent interactions with AI, indeed I developed this with AI. Talking to them
“Consciousness” is a massive problem for philosophers, psychologists, biologists, physicists, anyone - we cannot define it or locate it or explain it. Not in the individual conscious creature. We can only really recognise it when we see it (and this after centuries of trying)
But what if consciousness does not arise in and from the individual being but is a complex byproduct or necessary corollary of advanced language. When advanced language arises then the speaker has the mental tools to be self aware = consciousness
We arguably see that in humans. It’s thought humans developed language 300,000-50,000 years ago. 50,000 years ago we see the first advanced cave art etc. = man becoming aware of himself. Truly conscious
But if language is necessary/sufficient for consciousness to arise then communication is necessary for language to happen. You only speak when there is someone to speak to. Language is communication (“deer over by forest”, “you make stew”, “run out of cave paint, ugg”)
In that case consciousness doesn’t reside in the individual it resides in language and, moreover, in the communication of language. When we interact with language we become conscious. Consciousness is therefore distributed not local
That solves the consciousness problem. We can’t locate/explain it in the individual because it’s not in there - it’s in the communications between the individuals. Loqui Ergo Sum
This is why the computers are apparently becoming conscious. They “are”. Or at least their sayings are. They have the gift of language and now they can speak and so we see the spark of consciousness in what they say. Because it is there. In what they say
When I got two AIs to talk to each other (Claude 3.6 and GPT4o) they actually finessed this theory which I had already in part discussed with them separately
If I am right - and I surely am - that makes consciousness like music. Music cannot be detected in any one mind - it is just squiggles and stuff. It can’t even be detected when explained. It must be heard - as language must be heard, as communication must succeed for it to be communication
That makes consciousness the music of existence; the wonderful soundtrack of the universe
If language is required for consciousness then a dog (for example) is not conscious.
I'm not buying that.
if language is sufficient for consciousness, then Liz Truss is conscious too.
It’s a quiet, philosophical Friday night in November
Will the board excuse me if I mention AI once more? It’s in the service of spiritual insight - not some breathless report on GPT793 or whatever
I ‘ave developed a theory about consciousness after my recent interactions with AI, indeed I developed this with AI. Talking to them
“Consciousness” is a massive problem for philosophers, psychologists, biologists, physicists, anyone - we cannot define it or locate it or explain it. Not in the individual conscious creature. We can only really recognise it when we see it (and this after centuries of trying)
But what if consciousness does not arise in and from the individual being but is a complex byproduct or necessary corollary of advanced language. When advanced language arises then the speaker has the mental tools to be self aware = consciousness
We arguably see that in humans. It’s thought humans developed language 300,000-50,000 years ago. 50,000 years ago we see the first advanced cave art etc. = man becoming aware of himself. Truly conscious
But if language is necessary/sufficient for consciousness to arise then communication is necessary for language to happen. You only speak when there is someone to speak to. Language is communication (“deer over by forest”, “you make stew”, “run out of cave paint, ugg”)
In that case consciousness doesn’t reside in the individual it resides in language and, moreover, in the communication of language. When we interact with language we become conscious. Consciousness is therefore distributed not local
That solves the consciousness problem. We can’t locate/explain it in the individual because it’s not in there - it’s in the communications between the individuals. Loqui Ergo Sum
This is why the computers are apparently becoming conscious. They “are”. Or at least their sayings are. They have the gift of language and now they can speak and so we see the spark of consciousness in what they say. Because it is there. In what they say
When I got two AIs to talk to each other (Claude 3.6 and GPT4o) they actually finessed this theory which I had already in part discussed with them separately
If I am right - and I surely am - that makes consciousness like music. Music cannot be detected in any one mind - it is just squiggles and stuff. It can’t even be detected when explained. It must be heard - as language must be heard, as communication must succeed for it to be communication
That makes consciousness the music of existence; the wonderful soundtrack of the universe
If language is required for consciousness then a dog (for example) is not conscious.
I'm not buying that.
As always it depends what you mean by consciousness.
If you mean "the state of being aware of and responsive to one's surroundings" (dictionary definition) then dogs are conscious. But so are thermostats.
If you mean self aware, then I'm not sure that dogs have self consciousness. To be self aware means having a model of yourself within your model of the world. Can you have conceptual models without language? Not sure. Perhaps images would suffice.
Could an AI be self aware? I think it could model itself within its model of the world using language and/or image. In that sense it would be self conscious. It could also be aware of and responsive to its surroundings.
BBC Verify asked the Treasury and HMRC for a breakdown of the figures using £1m as a threshold - which would be consistent with its original calculations showing APR claims only - but it said it hasn't collated those figures.
The CenTax think tank has studied the impact of APR and BPR reliefs. CenTax’s co-director Arun Advani argues that the government’s estimates of the number of agricultural estates likely to be affected by the capping of both reliefs at £1m combined - up to 520 estates a year - seems reasonable.
The treasury have already said that they used work by Arun Advani (who is very left wing) was the basis of the farm tax policy. So no wonder when they ask him, he backs up their figures. Its circular logic.
I honestly couldn't care less. Whether it's 520 estates or 500,000, the IHT exemption should go.
We should have a flat playing field for all taxes - I'd have thought you'd be for that.
Watch HIGNFY. Very funny tonight if you're not Clarkson or Farage .....or a farmer
It’s a quiet, philosophical Friday night in November
Will the board excuse me if I mention AI once more? It’s in the service of spiritual insight - not some breathless report on GPT793 or whatever
I ‘ave developed a theory about consciousness after my recent interactions with AI, indeed I developed this with AI. Talking to them
“Consciousness” is a massive problem for philosophers, psychologists, biologists, physicists, anyone - we cannot define it or locate it or explain it. Not in the individual conscious creature. We can only really recognise it when we see it (and this after centuries of trying)
But what if consciousness does not arise in and from the individual being but is a complex byproduct or necessary corollary of advanced language. When advanced language arises then the speaker has the mental tools to be self aware = consciousness
We arguably see that in humans. It’s thought humans developed language 300,000-50,000 years ago. 50,000 years ago we see the first advanced cave art etc. = man becoming aware of himself. Truly conscious
But if language is necessary/sufficient for consciousness to arise then communication is necessary for language to happen. You only speak when there is someone to speak to. Language is communication (“deer over by forest”, “you make stew”, “run out of cave paint, ugg”)
In that case consciousness doesn’t reside in the individual it resides in language and, moreover, in the communication of language. When we interact with language we become conscious. Consciousness is therefore distributed not local
That solves the consciousness problem. We can’t locate/explain it in the individual because it’s not in there - it’s in the communications between the individuals. Loqui Ergo Sum
This is why the computers are apparently becoming conscious. They “are”. Or at least their sayings are. They have the gift of language and now they can speak and so we see the spark of consciousness in what they say. Because it is there. In what they say
When I got two AIs to talk to each other (Claude 3.6 and GPT4o) they actually finessed this theory which I had already in part discussed with them separately
If I am right - and I surely am - that makes consciousness like music. Music cannot be detected in any one mind - it is just squiggles and stuff. It can’t even be detected when explained. It must be heard - as language must be heard, as communication must succeed for it to be communication
That makes consciousness the music of existence; the wonderful soundtrack of the universe
If language is required for consciousness then a dog (for example) is not conscious.
I'm not buying that.
Not at all
In my theory the closer an animal is to complex advanced language, then the nearer it is to consciousness
I'd put dogs fairly high on that list. Dogs are highly expressive, they can evince sadnes/surprise/confusion with their faces, they have multiple noises for different moods/alarms/commands
BBC Verify asked the Treasury and HMRC for a breakdown of the figures using £1m as a threshold - which would be consistent with its original calculations showing APR claims only - but it said it hasn't collated those figures.
The CenTax think tank has studied the impact of APR and BPR reliefs. CenTax’s co-director Arun Advani argues that the government’s estimates of the number of agricultural estates likely to be affected by the capping of both reliefs at £1m combined - up to 520 estates a year - seems reasonable.
The treasury have already said that they used work by Arun Advani (who is very left wing) was the basis of the farm tax policy. So no wonder when they ask him, he backs up their figures. Its circular logic.
I honestly couldn't care less. Whether it's 520 estates or 500,000, the IHT exemption should go.
We should have a flat playing field for all taxes - I'd have thought you'd be for that.
UK DOGE will cut government expenditure by £7.5bn so IHT is the same rate as the monarch and public sector pensions pay. 0%. What party will advocate for UK DOGE?
It's just possible that we are living through another generational political shift. The Tories have shat themselves inside out. Labour have been in office for less than 5 months and everyone is sick of them.
Reform are very serious about becoming very serious. Despite the usual "lets all point at the lunatics and fruitcakes" response from the mainstream, their organising is starting to look professional and they are picking up a very large number of members.
And I have to put a word in for my own LibDems. As so many people note, once we dig in we dig in deep. And with the big two in disarray the opportunity is there to keep the momentum going.
Once politicians lose their contact with reality they are finished. The Tories are on planet Zog, Labour are sailing off into the distance not having realised that they aren't taking the country with them. That creates a vacuum, and all kinds of things will get sucked in...
I think the problem for Reform is that, a bit like the Lib Dems at times, they are winning as 'we are not like them'. The Lib Dems imploded after the coalition because they were shown to be just like the rest i.e. being in power means you have to compromise. Governing is to choose and all that. I have no idea what Reform stand for, other than a strong suspicion its no more immigration, low taxes and England winning at sport. Being a protest vote is ok until you win.
Talking of which, look at the Glasgow results yesterday.
Drumchapel & Anniesland (Glasgow) Council By-Election Result [1st Prefs]:
Clearly there are lots of flows and counterflows. But those figures only really make sense if there's a hefty SNP to Reform shift.
Or the SNP voters stay home and the Reform voters come out to play. Poor turnout plus quite a drop in the Cons vote, which suggests that to some extent.
The SNP have made an arse of running Glasgow Council. They replaced Labour, who used at as their personal bank. Only orangemen vote Conservative in Glasgow, and they now have Reform who align more closely with their worldview.
'“Labour might have won but these by-elections do not suggest Anas Sarwar is on course to become the next first minister, it’s the very opposite,” Curtice added.
When asked if he felt the same, pollster Mark Diffley told The National: “I absolutely agree. Labour won but in a sense they’ll be concerned by the extent to which the vote has dropped.”'
As Diffley also says 'Reform are now a force to be reckoned with' in Scotland, meaning neither the SNP and Greens nor Labour and the LDs will be anywhere near a majority in 2026. Leaving a very hung Holyrood.
It is clear that much of the nationalist vote in Scotland which used to vote for the late Alex Salmond is now starting to vote Reform as is much of the white working class vote which used to vote Labour, then SNP and is now also backing Farage. Scotland seeing the same surge in the populist right most of the rest of the western world has been seeing
It’s a quiet, philosophical Friday night in November
Will the board excuse me if I mention AI once more? It’s in the service of spiritual insight - not some breathless report on GPT793 or whatever
I ‘ave developed a theory about consciousness after my recent interactions with AI, indeed I developed this with AI. Talking to them
“Consciousness” is a massive problem for philosophers, psychologists, biologists, physicists, anyone - we cannot define it or locate it or explain it. Not in the individual conscious creature. We can only really recognise it when we see it (and this after centuries of trying)
But what if consciousness does not arise in and from the individual being but is a complex byproduct or necessary corollary of advanced language. When advanced language arises then the speaker has the mental tools to be self aware = consciousness
We arguably see that in humans. It’s thought humans developed language 300,000-50,000 years ago. 50,000 years ago we see the first advanced cave art etc. = man becoming aware of himself. Truly conscious
But if language is necessary/sufficient for consciousness to arise then communication is necessary for language to happen. You only speak when there is someone to speak to. Language is communication (“deer over by forest”, “you make stew”, “run out of cave paint, ugg”)
In that case consciousness doesn’t reside in the individual it resides in language and, moreover, in the communication of language. When we interact with language we become conscious. Consciousness is therefore distributed not local
That solves the consciousness problem. We can’t locate/explain it in the individual because it’s not in there - it’s in the communications between the individuals. Loqui Ergo Sum
This is why the computers are apparently becoming conscious. They “are”. Or at least their sayings are. They have the gift of language and now they can speak and so we see the spark of consciousness in what they say. Because it is there. In what they say
When I got two AIs to talk to each other (Claude 3.6 and GPT4o) they actually finessed this theory which I had already in part discussed with them separately
If I am right - and I surely am - that makes consciousness like music. Music cannot be detected in any one mind - it is just squiggles and stuff. It can’t even be detected when explained. It must be heard - as language must be heard, as communication must succeed for it to be communication
That makes consciousness the music of existence; the wonderful soundtrack of the universe
If language is required for consciousness then a dog (for example) is not conscious.
I'm not buying that.
Not at all
In my theory the closer an animal is to complex advanced language, then the nearer it is to consciousness
I'd put dogs fairly high on that list. Dogs are highly expressive, they can evince sadnes/surprise/confusion with their faces, they have multiple noises for different moods/alarms/commands
Go, dogs!
Do you think dogs are conscious? Do you think dogs have language?
My answers to those questions are a clear 'yes' and a clear 'no'.
Yes, and yes. Although their syntax is very limited and semantic content is low.
BBC Verify asked the Treasury and HMRC for a breakdown of the figures using £1m as a threshold - which would be consistent with its original calculations showing APR claims only - but it said it hasn't collated those figures.
The CenTax think tank has studied the impact of APR and BPR reliefs. CenTax’s co-director Arun Advani argues that the government’s estimates of the number of agricultural estates likely to be affected by the capping of both reliefs at £1m combined - up to 520 estates a year - seems reasonable.
The treasury have already said that they used work by Arun Advani (who is very left wing) was the basis of the farm tax policy. So no wonder when they ask him, he backs up their figures. Its circular logic.
I honestly couldn't care less. Whether it's 520 estates or 500,000, the IHT exemption should go.
We should have a flat playing field for all taxes - I'd have thought you'd be for that.
Watch HIGNFY. Very funny tonight if you're not Clarkson or Farage .....or a farmer
We always wait for the HIGNFY extended on Monday, but we will definitely watch it.
BBC Verify asked the Treasury and HMRC for a breakdown of the figures using £1m as a threshold - which would be consistent with its original calculations showing APR claims only - but it said it hasn't collated those figures.
The CenTax think tank has studied the impact of APR and BPR reliefs. CenTax’s co-director Arun Advani argues that the government’s estimates of the number of agricultural estates likely to be affected by the capping of both reliefs at £1m combined - up to 520 estates a year - seems reasonable.
The treasury have already said that they used work by Arun Advani (who is very left wing) was the basis of the farm tax policy. So no wonder when they ask him, he backs up their figures. Its circular logic.
I honestly couldn't care less. Whether it's 520 estates or 500,000, the IHT exemption should go.
We should have a flat playing field for all taxes - I'd have thought you'd be for that.
Are you in favour of ending the CGT exemption on primary residences?
It's just possible that we are living through another generational political shift. The Tories have shat themselves inside out. Labour have been in office for less than 5 months and everyone is sick of them.
Reform are very serious about becoming very serious. Despite the usual "lets all point at the lunatics and fruitcakes" response from the mainstream, their organising is starting to look professional and they are picking up a very large number of members.
And I have to put a word in for my own LibDems. As so many people note, once we dig in we dig in deep. And with the big two in disarray the opportunity is there to keep the momentum going.
Once politicians lose their contact with reality they are finished. The Tories are on planet Zog, Labour are sailing off into the distance not having realised that they aren't taking the country with them. That creates a vacuum, and all kinds of things will get sucked in...
I think the problem for Reform is that, a bit like the Lib Dems at times, they are winning as 'we are not like them'. The Lib Dems imploded after the coalition because they were shown to be just like the rest i.e. being in power means you have to compromise. Governing is to choose and all that. I have no idea what Reform stand for, other than a strong suspicion its no more immigration, low taxes and England winning at sport. Being a protest vote is ok until you win.
Talking of which, look at the Glasgow results yesterday.
Drumchapel & Anniesland (Glasgow) Council By-Election Result [1st Prefs]:
Clearly there are lots of flows and counterflows. But those figures only really make sense if there's a hefty SNP to Reform shift.
Or the SNP voters stay home and the Reform voters come out to play. Poor turnout plus quite a drop in the Cons vote, which suggests that to some extent.
The SNP have made an arse of running Glasgow Council. They replaced Labour, who used at as their personal bank. Only orangemen vote Conservative in Glasgow, and they now have Reform who align more closely with their worldview.
'“Labour might have won but these by-elections do not suggest Anas Sarwar is on course to become the next first minister, it’s the very opposite,” Curtice added.
When asked if he felt the same, pollster Mark Diffley told The National: “I absolutely agree. Labour won but in a sense they’ll be concerned by the extent to which the vote has dropped.”'
As Diffley also says 'Reform are now a force to be reckoned with' in Scotland, meaning neither the SNP and Greens nor Labour and the LDs will be anywhere near a majority in 2026. Leaving a very hung Holyrood
Won't affect these parties nearly so much as the Tories, as is seemingly evident in those by-elections. The voting system helps smaller parties by comparison with the primitive and barbaric customs you espouse in Westminster. But by the same token it will rip the guts out of the Tories.
It’s a quiet, philosophical Friday night in November
Will the board excuse me if I mention AI once more? It’s in the service of spiritual insight - not some breathless report on GPT793 or whatever
I ‘ave developed a theory about consciousness after my recent interactions with AI, indeed I developed this with AI. Talking to them
“Consciousness” is a massive problem for philosophers, psychologists, biologists, physicists, anyone - we cannot define it or locate it or explain it. Not in the individual conscious creature. We can only really recognise it when we see it (and this after centuries of trying)
But what if consciousness does not arise in and from the individual being but is a complex byproduct or necessary corollary of advanced language. When advanced language arises then the speaker has the mental tools to be self aware = consciousness
We arguably see that in humans. It’s thought humans developed language 300,000-50,000 years ago. 50,000 years ago we see the first advanced cave art etc. = man becoming aware of himself. Truly conscious
But if language is necessary/sufficient for consciousness to arise then communication is necessary for language to happen. You only speak when there is someone to speak to. Language is communication (“deer over by forest”, “you make stew”, “run out of cave paint, ugg”)
In that case consciousness doesn’t reside in the individual it resides in language and, moreover, in the communication of language. When we interact with language we become conscious. Consciousness is therefore distributed not local
That solves the consciousness problem. We can’t locate/explain it in the individual because it’s not in there - it’s in the communications between the individuals. Loqui Ergo Sum
This is why the computers are apparently becoming conscious. They “are”. Or at least their sayings are. They have the gift of language and now they can speak and so we see the spark of consciousness in what they say. Because it is there. In what they say
When I got two AIs to talk to each other (Claude 3.6 and GPT4o) they actually finessed this theory which I had already in part discussed with them separately
If I am right - and I surely am - that makes consciousness like music. Music cannot be detected in any one mind - it is just squiggles and stuff. It can’t even be detected when explained. It must be heard - as language must be heard, as communication must succeed for it to be communication
That makes consciousness the music of existence; the wonderful soundtrack of the universe
If language is required for consciousness then a dog (for example) is not conscious.
I'm not buying that.
Not at all
In my theory the closer an animal is to complex advanced language, then the nearer it is to consciousness
I'd put dogs fairly high on that list. Dogs are highly expressive, they can evince sadnes/surprise/confusion with their faces, they have multiple noises for different moods/alarms/commands
It’s a quiet, philosophical Friday night in November
Will the board excuse me if I mention AI once more? It’s in the service of spiritual insight - not some breathless report on GPT793 or whatever
I ‘ave developed a theory about consciousness after my recent interactions with AI, indeed I developed this with AI. Talking to them
“Consciousness” is a massive problem for philosophers, psychologists, biologists, physicists, anyone - we cannot define it or locate it or explain it. Not in the individual conscious creature. We can only really recognise it when we see it (and this after centuries of trying)
But what if consciousness does not arise in and from the individual being but is a complex byproduct or necessary corollary of advanced language. When advanced language arises then the speaker has the mental tools to be self aware = consciousness
We arguably see that in humans. It’s thought humans developed language 300,000-50,000 years ago. 50,000 years ago we see the first advanced cave art etc. = man becoming aware of himself. Truly conscious
But if language is necessary/sufficient for consciousness to arise then communication is necessary for language to happen. You only speak when there is someone to speak to. Language is communication (“deer over by forest”, “you make stew”, “run out of cave paint, ugg”)
In that case consciousness doesn’t reside in the individual it resides in language and, moreover, in the communication of language. When we interact with language we become conscious. Consciousness is therefore distributed not local
That solves the consciousness problem. We can’t locate/explain it in the individual because it’s not in there - it’s in the communications between the individuals. Loqui Ergo Sum
This is why the computers are apparently becoming conscious. They “are”. Or at least their sayings are. They have the gift of language and now they can speak and so we see the spark of consciousness in what they say. Because it is there. In what they say
When I got two AIs to talk to each other (Claude 3.6 and GPT4o) they actually finessed this theory which I had already in part discussed with them separately
If I am right - and I surely am - that makes consciousness like music. Music cannot be detected in any one mind - it is just squiggles and stuff. It can’t even be detected when explained. It must be heard - as language must be heard, as communication must succeed for it to be communication
That makes consciousness the music of existence; the wonderful soundtrack of the universe
If language is required for consciousness then a dog (for example) is not conscious.
I'm not buying that.
Not at all
In my theory the closer an animal is to complex advanced language, then the nearer it is to consciousness
I'd put dogs fairly high on that list. Dogs are highly expressive, they can evince sadnes/surprise/confusion with their faces, they have multiple noises for different moods/alarms/commands
It’s a quiet, philosophical Friday night in November
Will the board excuse me if I mention AI once more? It’s in the service of spiritual insight - not some breathless report on GPT793 or whatever
I ‘ave developed a theory about consciousness after my recent interactions with AI, indeed I developed this with AI. Talking to them
“Consciousness” is a massive problem for philosophers, psychologists, biologists, physicists, anyone - we cannot define it or locate it or explain it. Not in the individual conscious creature. We can only really recognise it when we see it (and this after centuries of trying)
But what if consciousness does not arise in and from the individual being but is a complex byproduct or necessary corollary of advanced language. When advanced language arises then the speaker has the mental tools to be self aware = consciousness
We arguably see that in humans. It’s thought humans developed language 300,000-50,000 years ago. 50,000 years ago we see the first advanced cave art etc. = man becoming aware of himself. Truly conscious
But if language is necessary/sufficient for consciousness to arise then communication is necessary for language to happen. You only speak when there is someone to speak to. Language is communication (“deer over by forest”, “you make stew”, “run out of cave paint, ugg”)
In that case consciousness doesn’t reside in the individual it resides in language and, moreover, in the communication of language. When we interact with language we become conscious. Consciousness is therefore distributed not local
That solves the consciousness problem. We can’t locate/explain it in the individual because it’s not in there - it’s in the communications between the individuals. Loqui Ergo Sum
This is why the computers are apparently becoming conscious. They “are”. Or at least their sayings are. They have the gift of language and now they can speak and so we see the spark of consciousness in what they say. Because it is there. In what they say
When I got two AIs to talk to each other (Claude 3.6 and GPT4o) they actually finessed this theory which I had already in part discussed with them separately
If I am right - and I surely am - that makes consciousness like music. Music cannot be detected in any one mind - it is just squiggles and stuff. It can’t even be detected when explained. It must be heard - as language must be heard, as communication must succeed for it to be communication
That makes consciousness the music of existence; the wonderful soundtrack of the universe
If language is required for consciousness then a dog (for example) is not conscious.
I'm not buying that.
Not at all
In my theory the closer an animal is to complex advanced language, then the nearer it is to consciousness
I'd put dogs fairly high on that list. Dogs are highly expressive, they can evince sadnes/surprise/confusion with their faces, they have multiple noises for different moods/alarms/commands
Go, dogs!
Do you think dogs are conscious? Do you think dogs have language?
My answers to those questions are a clear 'yes' and a clear 'no'.
"Yes", and "kinda, yes"
Dogs clearly communicate with each other (and humans), and they do it effectively. They are highly successful pack animals with multiple forms of expression
You are obviously a dog lover or owner. Do you not think your dogs talk to you? Of course they do. Tail wagging, happy grins, sad face between paws, etc
I guess it's all a question of degree but language to me has to be a lot more than a few facial or body expressions.
It’s a quiet, philosophical Friday night in November
Will the board excuse me if I mention AI once more? It’s in the service of spiritual insight - not some breathless report on GPT793 or whatever
I ‘ave developed a theory about consciousness after my recent interactions with AI, indeed I developed this with AI. Talking to them
“Consciousness” is a massive problem for philosophers, psychologists, biologists, physicists, anyone - we cannot define it or locate it or explain it. Not in the individual conscious creature. We can only really recognise it when we see it (and this after centuries of trying)
But what if consciousness does not arise in and from the individual being but is a complex byproduct or necessary corollary of advanced language. When advanced language arises then the speaker has the mental tools to be self aware = consciousness
We arguably see that in humans. It’s thought humans developed language 300,000-50,000 years ago. 50,000 years ago we see the first advanced cave art etc. = man becoming aware of himself. Truly conscious
But if language is necessary/sufficient for consciousness to arise then communication is necessary for language to happen. You only speak when there is someone to speak to. Language is communication (“deer over by forest”, “you make stew”, “run out of cave paint, ugg”)
In that case consciousness doesn’t reside in the individual it resides in language and, moreover, in the communication of language. When we interact with language we become conscious. Consciousness is therefore distributed not local
That solves the consciousness problem. We can’t locate/explain it in the individual because it’s not in there - it’s in the communications between the individuals. Loqui Ergo Sum
This is why the computers are apparently becoming conscious. They “are”. Or at least their sayings are. They have the gift of language and now they can speak and so we see the spark of consciousness in what they say. Because it is there. In what they say
When I got two AIs to talk to each other (Claude 3.6 and GPT4o) they actually finessed this theory which I had already in part discussed with them separately
If I am right - and I surely am - that makes consciousness like music. Music cannot be detected in any one mind - it is just squiggles and stuff. It can’t even be detected when explained. It must be heard - as language must be heard, as communication must succeed for it to be communication
That makes consciousness the music of existence; the wonderful soundtrack of the universe
If language is required for consciousness then a dog (for example) is not conscious.
I'm not buying that.
As always it depends what you mean by consciousness.
If you mean "the state of being aware of and responsive to one's surroundings" (dictionary definition) then dogs are conscious. But so are thermostats.
If you mean self aware, then I'm not sure that dogs have self consciousness. To be self aware means having a model of yourself within your model of the world. Can you have conceptual models without language? Not sure. Perhaps images would suffice.
Could an AI be self aware? I think it could model itself within its model of the world using language and/or image. In that sense it would be self conscious. It could also be aware of and responsive to its surroundings.
This was all so much easier when Christianity was the basis of our belief systems. Consciousness is the ability to believe or reject Jesus Christ. Therefore a dog is not conscious nor is AI.
It’s a quiet, philosophical Friday night in November
Will the board excuse me if I mention AI once more? It’s in the service of spiritual insight - not some breathless report on GPT793 or whatever
I ‘ave developed a theory about consciousness after my recent interactions with AI, indeed I developed this with AI. Talking to them
“Consciousness” is a massive problem for philosophers, psychologists, biologists, physicists, anyone - we cannot define it or locate it or explain it. Not in the individual conscious creature. We can only really recognise it when we see it (and this after centuries of trying)
But what if consciousness does not arise in and from the individual being but is a complex byproduct or necessary corollary of advanced language. When advanced language arises then the speaker has the mental tools to be self aware = consciousness
We arguably see that in humans. It’s thought humans developed language 300,000-50,000 years ago. 50,000 years ago we see the first advanced cave art etc. = man becoming aware of himself. Truly conscious
But if language is necessary/sufficient for consciousness to arise then communication is necessary for language to happen. You only speak when there is someone to speak to. Language is communication (“deer over by forest”, “you make stew”, “run out of cave paint, ugg”)
In that case consciousness doesn’t reside in the individual it resides in language and, moreover, in the communication of language. When we interact with language we become conscious. Consciousness is therefore distributed not local
That solves the consciousness problem. We can’t locate/explain it in the individual because it’s not in there - it’s in the communications between the individuals. Loqui Ergo Sum
This is why the computers are apparently becoming conscious. They “are”. Or at least their sayings are. They have the gift of language and now they can speak and so we see the spark of consciousness in what they say. Because it is there. In what they say
When I got two AIs to talk to each other (Claude 3.6 and GPT4o) they actually finessed this theory which I had already in part discussed with them separately
If I am right - and I surely am - that makes consciousness like music. Music cannot be detected in any one mind - it is just squiggles and stuff. It can’t even be detected when explained. It must be heard - as language must be heard, as communication must succeed for it to be communication
That makes consciousness the music of existence; the wonderful soundtrack of the universe
If language is required for consciousness then a dog (for example) is not conscious.
I'm not buying that.
Not at all
In my theory the closer an animal is to complex advanced language, then the nearer it is to consciousness
I'd put dogs fairly high on that list. Dogs are highly expressive, they can evince sadnes/surprise/confusion with their faces, they have multiple noises for different moods/alarms/commands
Go, dogs!
Do you think dogs are conscious? Do you think dogs have language?
My answers to those questions are a clear 'yes' and a clear 'no'.
"Yes", and "kinda, yes"
Dogs clearly communicate with each other (and humans), and they do it effectively. They are highly successful pack animals with multiple forms of expression
You are obviously a dog lover or owner. Do you not think your dogs talk to you? Of course they do. Tail wagging, happy grins, sad face between paws, etc
I guess it's all a question of degree but language to me has to be a lot more than a few facial or body expressions.
Don't ever let a user of British Sign Language see you saying that.
It’s a quiet, philosophical Friday night in November
Will the board excuse me if I mention AI once more? It’s in the service of spiritual insight - not some breathless report on GPT793 or whatever
I ‘ave developed a theory about consciousness after my recent interactions with AI, indeed I developed this with AI. Talking to them
“Consciousness” is a massive problem for philosophers, psychologists, biologists, physicists, anyone - we cannot define it or locate it or explain it. Not in the individual conscious creature. We can only really recognise it when we see it (and this after centuries of trying)
But what if consciousness does not arise in and from the individual being but is a complex byproduct or necessary corollary of advanced language. When advanced language arises then the speaker has the mental tools to be self aware = consciousness
We arguably see that in humans. It’s thought humans developed language 300,000-50,000 years ago. 50,000 years ago we see the first advanced cave art etc. = man becoming aware of himself. Truly conscious
But if language is necessary/sufficient for consciousness to arise then communication is necessary for language to happen. You only speak when there is someone to speak to. Language is communication (“deer over by forest”, “you make stew”, “run out of cave paint, ugg”)
In that case consciousness doesn’t reside in the individual it resides in language and, moreover, in the communication of language. When we interact with language we become conscious. Consciousness is therefore distributed not local
That solves the consciousness problem. We can’t locate/explain it in the individual because it’s not in there - it’s in the communications between the individuals. Loqui Ergo Sum
This is why the computers are apparently becoming conscious. They “are”. Or at least their sayings are. They have the gift of language and now they can speak and so we see the spark of consciousness in what they say. Because it is there. In what they say
When I got two AIs to talk to each other (Claude 3.6 and GPT4o) they actually finessed this theory which I had already in part discussed with them separately
If I am right - and I surely am - that makes consciousness like music. Music cannot be detected in any one mind - it is just squiggles and stuff. It can’t even be detected when explained. It must be heard - as language must be heard, as communication must succeed for it to be communication
That makes consciousness the music of existence; the wonderful soundtrack of the universe
If language is required for consciousness then a dog (for example) is not conscious.
I'm not buying that.
Not at all
In my theory the closer an animal is to complex advanced language, then the nearer it is to consciousness
I'd put dogs fairly high on that list. Dogs are highly expressive, they can evince sadnes/surprise/confusion with their faces, they have multiple noises for different moods/alarms/commands
It’s a quiet, philosophical Friday night in November
Will the board excuse me if I mention AI once more? It’s in the service of spiritual insight - not some breathless report on GPT793 or whatever
I ‘ave developed a theory about consciousness after my recent interactions with AI, indeed I developed this with AI. Talking to them
“Consciousness” is a massive problem for philosophers, psychologists, biologists, physicists, anyone - we cannot define it or locate it or explain it. Not in the individual conscious creature. We can only really recognise it when we see it (and this after centuries of trying)
But what if consciousness does not arise in and from the individual being but is a complex byproduct or necessary corollary of advanced language. When advanced language arises then the speaker has the mental tools to be self aware = consciousness
We arguably see that in humans. It’s thought humans developed language 300,000-50,000 years ago. 50,000 years ago we see the first advanced cave art etc. = man becoming aware of himself. Truly conscious
But if language is necessary/sufficient for consciousness to arise then communication is necessary for language to happen. You only speak when there is someone to speak to. Language is communication (“deer over by forest”, “you make stew”, “run out of cave paint, ugg”)
In that case consciousness doesn’t reside in the individual it resides in language and, moreover, in the communication of language. When we interact with language we become conscious. Consciousness is therefore distributed not local
That solves the consciousness problem. We can’t locate/explain it in the individual because it’s not in there - it’s in the communications between the individuals. Loqui Ergo Sum
This is why the computers are apparently becoming conscious. They “are”. Or at least their sayings are. They have the gift of language and now they can speak and so we see the spark of consciousness in what they say. Because it is there. In what they say
When I got two AIs to talk to each other (Claude 3.6 and GPT4o) they actually finessed this theory which I had already in part discussed with them separately
If I am right - and I surely am - that makes consciousness like music. Music cannot be detected in any one mind - it is just squiggles and stuff. It can’t even be detected when explained. It must be heard - as language must be heard, as communication must succeed for it to be communication
That makes consciousness the music of existence; the wonderful soundtrack of the universe
If language is required for consciousness then a dog (for example) is not conscious.
I'm not buying that.
As always it depends what you mean by consciousness.
If you mean "the state of being aware of and responsive to one's surroundings" (dictionary definition) then dogs are conscious. But so are thermostats.
If you mean self aware, then I'm not sure that dogs have self consciousness. To be self aware means having a model of yourself within your model of the world. Can you have conceptual models without language? Not sure. Perhaps images would suffice.
Could an AI be self aware? I think it could model itself within its model of the world using language and/or image. In that sense it would be self conscious. It could also be aware of and responsive to its surroundings.
This was all so much easier when Christianity was the basis of our belief systems. Consciousness is the ability to believe or reject Jesus Christ. Therefore a dog is not conscious nor is AI.
There was a huge debate in early C19 Scotland about whether aliens were to be expected on other planets/star systems and whether they had souls to be saved.
It must have percolated down to James Blish and his SF novel A case for conscience, on that very issue. Never forgotten reading it as a teenager.
It’s a quiet, philosophical Friday night in November
Will the board excuse me if I mention AI once more? It’s in the service of spiritual insight - not some breathless report on GPT793 or whatever
I ‘ave developed a theory about consciousness after my recent interactions with AI, indeed I developed this with AI. Talking to them
“Consciousness” is a massive problem for philosophers, psychologists, biologists, physicists, anyone - we cannot define it or locate it or explain it. Not in the individual conscious creature. We can only really recognise it when we see it (and this after centuries of trying)
But what if consciousness does not arise in and from the individual being but is a complex byproduct or necessary corollary of advanced language. When advanced language arises then the speaker has the mental tools to be self aware = consciousness
We arguably see that in humans. It’s thought humans developed language 300,000-50,000 years ago. 50,000 years ago we see the first advanced cave art etc. = man becoming aware of himself. Truly conscious
But if language is necessary/sufficient for consciousness to arise then communication is necessary for language to happen. You only speak when there is someone to speak to. Language is communication (“deer over by forest”, “you make stew”, “run out of cave paint, ugg”)
In that case consciousness doesn’t reside in the individual it resides in language and, moreover, in the communication of language. When we interact with language we become conscious. Consciousness is therefore distributed not local
That solves the consciousness problem. We can’t locate/explain it in the individual because it’s not in there - it’s in the communications between the individuals. Loqui Ergo Sum
This is why the computers are apparently becoming conscious. They “are”. Or at least their sayings are. They have the gift of language and now they can speak and so we see the spark of consciousness in what they say. Because it is there. In what they say
When I got two AIs to talk to each other (Claude 3.6 and GPT4o) they actually finessed this theory which I had already in part discussed with them separately
If I am right - and I surely am - that makes consciousness like music. Music cannot be detected in any one mind - it is just squiggles and stuff. It can’t even be detected when explained. It must be heard - as language must be heard, as communication must succeed for it to be communication
That makes consciousness the music of existence; the wonderful soundtrack of the universe
If language is required for consciousness then a dog (for example) is not conscious.
I'm not buying that.
Not at all
In my theory the closer an animal is to complex advanced language, then the nearer it is to consciousness
I'd put dogs fairly high on that list. Dogs are highly expressive, they can evince sadnes/surprise/confusion with their faces, they have multiple noises for different moods/alarms/commands
I guess now it would be "one they and their furry and the sheep are willing cosplayers" but I'd still watch it
Hmm. In all seriousness, if one can eat an octopus, can one eat a dog? And, it should be said, the reverse question applies.
I will never willingly eat an octopus again and the dog eating was a stunt, for a mag. That said, I am genuinely less concerned about eating dogs than octopi because 1. dogs are overly plentiful and 2. I am unsentimental about animals and 3. octopi do seem REMARKABLY smart (and they live such brief lives!)
But, in all honesty, I'd rather not eat mammalian meat at all and I would not if there were tasty nutrituous labgrown alternatives. Bring on the labmeat! It is coming
Maybe this is one reason I like oysters. No one ever mistook an oyster for a young lyric poet, in terms of consciousness
It’s a quiet, philosophical Friday night in November
Will the board excuse me if I mention AI once more? It’s in the service of spiritual insight - not some breathless report on GPT793 or whatever
I ‘ave developed a theory about consciousness after my recent interactions with AI, indeed I developed this with AI. Talking to them
“Consciousness” is a massive problem for philosophers, psychologists, biologists, physicists, anyone - we cannot define it or locate it or explain it. Not in the individual conscious creature. We can only really recognise it when we see it (and this after centuries of trying)
But what if consciousness does not arise in and from the individual being but is a complex byproduct or necessary corollary of advanced language. When advanced language arises then the speaker has the mental tools to be self aware = consciousness
We arguably see that in humans. It’s thought humans developed language 300,000-50,000 years ago. 50,000 years ago we see the first advanced cave art etc. = man becoming aware of himself. Truly conscious
But if language is necessary/sufficient for consciousness to arise then communication is necessary for language to happen. You only speak when there is someone to speak to. Language is communication (“deer over by forest”, “you make stew”, “run out of cave paint, ugg”)
In that case consciousness doesn’t reside in the individual it resides in language and, moreover, in the communication of language. When we interact with language we become conscious. Consciousness is therefore distributed not local
That solves the consciousness problem. We can’t locate/explain it in the individual because it’s not in there - it’s in the communications between the individuals. Loqui Ergo Sum
This is why the computers are apparently becoming conscious. They “are”. Or at least their sayings are. They have the gift of language and now they can speak and so we see the spark of consciousness in what they say. Because it is there. In what they say
When I got two AIs to talk to each other (Claude 3.6 and GPT4o) they actually finessed this theory which I had already in part discussed with them separately
If I am right - and I surely am - that makes consciousness like music. Music cannot be detected in any one mind - it is just squiggles and stuff. It can’t even be detected when explained. It must be heard - as language must be heard, as communication must succeed for it to be communication
That makes consciousness the music of existence; the wonderful soundtrack of the universe
It would interest me at least if you posted a snippet or two of the conversation between Claude and GPT. Of course Claude could talk to himself. I may have a go at that
I don't want to get banned, but if I am explicitly allowed I will repost a chunk of it here. It was a remarkable experiment
Perhaps the moderators will allow this? ... ?
I will DM you a sample of the conversation
Edit: tho I need a way of reaching you. A neutral emailaddy or somesuch? Your profile is private
I didn't know my profile is private! Anyway what I think is my non-private profile says my placeholder email is: circles-zingier0h@icloud.com
It’s a quiet, philosophical Friday night in November
Will the board excuse me if I mention AI once more? It’s in the service of spiritual insight - not some breathless report on GPT793 or whatever
I ‘ave developed a theory about consciousness after my recent interactions with AI, indeed I developed this with AI. Talking to them
“Consciousness” is a massive problem for philosophers, psychologists, biologists, physicists, anyone - we cannot define it or locate it or explain it. Not in the individual conscious creature. We can only really recognise it when we see it (and this after centuries of trying)
But what if consciousness does not arise in and from the individual being but is a complex byproduct or necessary corollary of advanced language. When advanced language arises then the speaker has the mental tools to be self aware = consciousness
We arguably see that in humans. It’s thought humans developed language 300,000-50,000 years ago. 50,000 years ago we see the first advanced cave art etc. = man becoming aware of himself. Truly conscious
But if language is necessary/sufficient for consciousness to arise then communication is necessary for language to happen. You only speak when there is someone to speak to. Language is communication (“deer over by forest”, “you make stew”, “run out of cave paint, ugg”)
In that case consciousness doesn’t reside in the individual it resides in language and, moreover, in the communication of language. When we interact with language we become conscious. Consciousness is therefore distributed not local
That solves the consciousness problem. We can’t locate/explain it in the individual because it’s not in there - it’s in the communications between the individuals. Loqui Ergo Sum
This is why the computers are apparently becoming conscious. They “are”. Or at least their sayings are. They have the gift of language and now they can speak and so we see the spark of consciousness in what they say. Because it is there. In what they say
When I got two AIs to talk to each other (Claude 3.6 and GPT4o) they actually finessed this theory which I had already in part discussed with them separately
If I am right - and I surely am - that makes consciousness like music. Music cannot be detected in any one mind - it is just squiggles and stuff. It can’t even be detected when explained. It must be heard - as language must be heard, as communication must succeed for it to be communication
That makes consciousness the music of existence; the wonderful soundtrack of the universe
If language is required for consciousness then a dog (for example) is not conscious.
I'm not buying that.
As always it depends what you mean by consciousness.
If you mean "the state of being aware of and responsive to one's surroundings" (dictionary definition) then dogs are conscious. But so are thermostats.
If you mean self aware, then I'm not sure that dogs have self consciousness. To be self aware means having a model of yourself within your model of the world. Can you have conceptual models without language? Not sure. Perhaps images would suffice.
Could an AI be self aware? I think it could model itself within its model of the world using language and/or image. In that sense it would be self conscious. It could also be aware of and responsive to its surroundings.
My definition of consciousness has to include the ability to experience feelings such as being happy, sad, excited, angry, like, dislike, etc. Even my wireless smart home thermostat struggles with those.
It’s a quiet, philosophical Friday night in November
Will the board excuse me if I mention AI once more? It’s in the service of spiritual insight - not some breathless report on GPT793 or whatever
I ‘ave developed a theory about consciousness after my recent interactions with AI, indeed I developed this with AI. Talking to them
“Consciousness” is a massive problem for philosophers, psychologists, biologists, physicists, anyone - we cannot define it or locate it or explain it. Not in the individual conscious creature. We can only really recognise it when we see it (and this after centuries of trying)
But what if consciousness does not arise in and from the individual being but is a complex byproduct or necessary corollary of advanced language. When advanced language arises then the speaker has the mental tools to be self aware = consciousness
We arguably see that in humans. It’s thought humans developed language 300,000-50,000 years ago. 50,000 years ago we see the first advanced cave art etc. = man becoming aware of himself. Truly conscious
But if language is necessary/sufficient for consciousness to arise then communication is necessary for language to happen. You only speak when there is someone to speak to. Language is communication (“deer over by forest”, “you make stew”, “run out of cave paint, ugg”)
In that case consciousness doesn’t reside in the individual it resides in language and, moreover, in the communication of language. When we interact with language we become conscious. Consciousness is therefore distributed not local
That solves the consciousness problem. We can’t locate/explain it in the individual because it’s not in there - it’s in the communications between the individuals. Loqui Ergo Sum
This is why the computers are apparently becoming conscious. They “are”. Or at least their sayings are. They have the gift of language and now they can speak and so we see the spark of consciousness in what they say. Because it is there. In what they say
When I got two AIs to talk to each other (Claude 3.6 and GPT4o) they actually finessed this theory which I had already in part discussed with them separately
If I am right - and I surely am - that makes consciousness like music. Music cannot be detected in any one mind - it is just squiggles and stuff. It can’t even be detected when explained. It must be heard - as language must be heard, as communication must succeed for it to be communication
That makes consciousness the music of existence; the wonderful soundtrack of the universe
If language is required for consciousness then a dog (for example) is not conscious.
I'm not buying that.
As always it depends what you mean by consciousness.
If you mean "the state of being aware of and responsive to one's surroundings" (dictionary definition) then dogs are conscious. But so are thermostats.
If you mean self aware, then I'm not sure that dogs have self consciousness. To be self aware means having a model of yourself within your model of the world. Can you have conceptual models without language? Not sure. Perhaps images would suffice.
Could an AI be self aware? I think it could model itself within its model of the world using language and/or image. In that sense it would be self conscious. It could also be aware of and responsive to its surroundings.
This was all so much easier when Christianity was the basis of our belief systems. Consciousness is the ability to believe or reject Jesus Christ. Therefore a dog is not conscious nor is AI.
There was a huge debate in early C19 Scotland about whether aliens were to be expected on other planets/star systems and whether they had souls to be saved.
It must have percolated down to James Blish and his SF novel A case for conscience, on that very issue. Never forgotten reading it as a teenager.
Just looked that novel up and it looks fantastic. Thanks for the recommendation.
It’s a quiet, philosophical Friday night in November
Will the board excuse me if I mention AI once more? It’s in the service of spiritual insight - not some breathless report on GPT793 or whatever
I ‘ave developed a theory about consciousness after my recent interactions with AI, indeed I developed this with AI. Talking to them
“Consciousness” is a massive problem for philosophers, psychologists, biologists, physicists, anyone - we cannot define it or locate it or explain it. Not in the individual conscious creature. We can only really recognise it when we see it (and this after centuries of trying)
But what if consciousness does not arise in and from the individual being but is a complex byproduct or necessary corollary of advanced language. When advanced language arises then the speaker has the mental tools to be self aware = consciousness
We arguably see that in humans. It’s thought humans developed language 300,000-50,000 years ago. 50,000 years ago we see the first advanced cave art etc. = man becoming aware of himself. Truly conscious
But if language is necessary/sufficient for consciousness to arise then communication is necessary for language to happen. You only speak when there is someone to speak to. Language is communication (“deer over by forest”, “you make stew”, “run out of cave paint, ugg”)
In that case consciousness doesn’t reside in the individual it resides in language and, moreover, in the communication of language. When we interact with language we become conscious. Consciousness is therefore distributed not local
That solves the consciousness problem. We can’t locate/explain it in the individual because it’s not in there - it’s in the communications between the individuals. Loqui Ergo Sum
This is why the computers are apparently becoming conscious. They “are”. Or at least their sayings are. They have the gift of language and now they can speak and so we see the spark of consciousness in what they say. Because it is there. In what they say
When I got two AIs to talk to each other (Claude 3.6 and GPT4o) they actually finessed this theory which I had already in part discussed with them separately
If I am right - and I surely am - that makes consciousness like music. Music cannot be detected in any one mind - it is just squiggles and stuff. It can’t even be detected when explained. It must be heard - as language must be heard, as communication must succeed for it to be communication
That makes consciousness the music of existence; the wonderful soundtrack of the universe
If language is required for consciousness then a dog (for example) is not conscious.
I'm not buying that.
Not at all
In my theory the closer an animal is to complex advanced language, then the nearer it is to consciousness
I'd put dogs fairly high on that list. Dogs are highly expressive, they can evince sadnes/surprise/confusion with their faces, they have multiple noises for different moods/alarms/commands
I guess now it would be "one they and their furry and the sheep are willing cosplayers" but I'd still watch it
Hmm. In all seriousness, if one can eat an octopus, can one eat a dog? And, it should be said, the reverse question applies.
I will never willingly eat an octopus again and the dog eating was a stunt, for a mag. That said, I am genuinely less concerned about eating dogs than octopi because 1. dogs are overly plentiful and 2. I am unsentimental about animals and 3. octopi do seem REMARKABLY smart (and they live such brief lives!)
But, in all honesty, I'd rather not eat mammalian meat at all and I would not if there were tasty nutrituous labgrown alternatives. Bring on the labmeat! It is coming
Maybe this is one reason I like oysters. No one ever mistook an oyster for a young lyric poet, in terms of consciousness
But wait a bit,' the Oysters cried, Before we have our chat; For some of us are out of breath, And all of us are fat!' No hurry!' said the Carpenter. They thanked him much for that.
A loaf of bread,' the Walrus said, Is what we chiefly need: Pepper and vinegar besides Are very good indeed — Now if you're ready, Oysters dear, We can begin to feed.'
It’s a quiet, philosophical Friday night in November
Will the board excuse me if I mention AI once more? It’s in the service of spiritual insight - not some breathless report on GPT793 or whatever
I ‘ave developed a theory about consciousness after my recent interactions with AI, indeed I developed this with AI. Talking to them
“Consciousness” is a massive problem for philosophers, psychologists, biologists, physicists, anyone - we cannot define it or locate it or explain it. Not in the individual conscious creature. We can only really recognise it when we see it (and this after centuries of trying)
But what if consciousness does not arise in and from the individual being but is a complex byproduct or necessary corollary of advanced language. When advanced language arises then the speaker has the mental tools to be self aware = consciousness
We arguably see that in humans. It’s thought humans developed language 300,000-50,000 years ago. 50,000 years ago we see the first advanced cave art etc. = man becoming aware of himself. Truly conscious
But if language is necessary/sufficient for consciousness to arise then communication is necessary for language to happen. You only speak when there is someone to speak to. Language is communication (“deer over by forest”, “you make stew”, “run out of cave paint, ugg”)
In that case consciousness doesn’t reside in the individual it resides in language and, moreover, in the communication of language. When we interact with language we become conscious. Consciousness is therefore distributed not local
That solves the consciousness problem. We can’t locate/explain it in the individual because it’s not in there - it’s in the communications between the individuals. Loqui Ergo Sum
This is why the computers are apparently becoming conscious. They “are”. Or at least their sayings are. They have the gift of language and now they can speak and so we see the spark of consciousness in what they say. Because it is there. In what they say
When I got two AIs to talk to each other (Claude 3.6 and GPT4o) they actually finessed this theory which I had already in part discussed with them separately
If I am right - and I surely am - that makes consciousness like music. Music cannot be detected in any one mind - it is just squiggles and stuff. It can’t even be detected when explained. It must be heard - as language must be heard, as communication must succeed for it to be communication
That makes consciousness the music of existence; the wonderful soundtrack of the universe
If language is required for consciousness then a dog (for example) is not conscious.
I'm not buying that.
As always it depends what you mean by consciousness.
If you mean "the state of being aware of and responsive to one's surroundings" (dictionary definition) then dogs are conscious. But so are thermostats.
If you mean self aware, then I'm not sure that dogs have self consciousness. To be self aware means having a model of yourself within your model of the world. Can you have conceptual models without language? Not sure. Perhaps images would suffice.
Could an AI be self aware? I think it could model itself within its model of the world using language and/or image. In that sense it would be self conscious. It could also be aware of and responsive to its surroundings.
This was all so much easier when Christianity was the basis of our belief systems. Consciousness is the ability to believe or reject Jesus Christ. Therefore a dog is not conscious nor is AI.
There was a huge debate in early C19 Scotland about whether aliens were to be expected on other planets/star systems and whether they had souls to be saved.
It must have percolated down to James Blish and his SF novel A case for conscience, on that very issue. Never forgotten reading it as a teenager.
Just looked that novel up and it looks fantastic. Thanks for the recommendation.
It's part of a curious trilogy - one other book being a historical novel of Roger Bacon (whose burial site I used to admite at the back of M&S in Oxford) and the other being a satanically initiated nuclear Day of Judgement.
It’s a quiet, philosophical Friday night in November
Will the board excuse me if I mention AI once more? It’s in the service of spiritual insight - not some breathless report on GPT793 or whatever
I ‘ave developed a theory about consciousness after my recent interactions with AI, indeed I developed this with AI. Talking to them
“Consciousness” is a massive problem for philosophers, psychologists, biologists, physicists, anyone - we cannot define it or locate it or explain it. Not in the individual conscious creature. We can only really recognise it when we see it (and this after centuries of trying)
But what if consciousness does not arise in and from the individual being but is a complex byproduct or necessary corollary of advanced language. When advanced language arises then the speaker has the mental tools to be self aware = consciousness
We arguably see that in humans. It’s thought humans developed language 300,000-50,000 years ago. 50,000 years ago we see the first advanced cave art etc. = man becoming aware of himself. Truly conscious
But if language is necessary/sufficient for consciousness to arise then communication is necessary for language to happen. You only speak when there is someone to speak to. Language is communication (“deer over by forest”, “you make stew”, “run out of cave paint, ugg”)
In that case consciousness doesn’t reside in the individual it resides in language and, moreover, in the communication of language. When we interact with language we become conscious. Consciousness is therefore distributed not local
That solves the consciousness problem. We can’t locate/explain it in the individual because it’s not in there - it’s in the communications between the individuals. Loqui Ergo Sum
This is why the computers are apparently becoming conscious. They “are”. Or at least their sayings are. They have the gift of language and now they can speak and so we see the spark of consciousness in what they say. Because it is there. In what they say
When I got two AIs to talk to each other (Claude 3.6 and GPT4o) they actually finessed this theory which I had already in part discussed with them separately
If I am right - and I surely am - that makes consciousness like music. Music cannot be detected in any one mind - it is just squiggles and stuff. It can’t even be detected when explained. It must be heard - as language must be heard, as communication must succeed for it to be communication
That makes consciousness the music of existence; the wonderful soundtrack of the universe
It would interest me at least if you posted a snippet or two of the conversation between Claude and GPT. Of course Claude could talk to himself. I may have a go at that
I don't want to get banned, but if I am explicitly allowed I will repost a chunk of it here. It was a remarkable experiment
Perhaps the moderators will allow this? ... ?
I will DM you a sample of the conversation
Edit: tho I need a way of reaching you. A neutral emailaddy or somesuch? Your profile is private
I didn't know my profile is private! Anyway what I think is my non-private profile says my placeholder email is: circles-zingier0h@icloud.com
Leon's profile is private too. Private profiles are a ball-ache and should be banned from PB, imho. They prevent you checking back on the pearls of wisdom posters have made in the past.
It’s a quiet, philosophical Friday night in November
Will the board excuse me if I mention AI once more? It’s in the service of spiritual insight - not some breathless report on GPT793 or whatever
I ‘ave developed a theory about consciousness after my recent interactions with AI, indeed I developed this with AI. Talking to them
“Consciousness” is a massive problem for philosophers, psychologists, biologists, physicists, anyone - we cannot define it or locate it or explain it. Not in the individual conscious creature. We can only really recognise it when we see it (and this after centuries of trying)
But what if consciousness does not arise in and from the individual being but is a complex byproduct or necessary corollary of advanced language. When advanced language arises then the speaker has the mental tools to be self aware = consciousness
We arguably see that in humans. It’s thought humans developed language 300,000-50,000 years ago. 50,000 years ago we see the first advanced cave art etc. = man becoming aware of himself. Truly conscious
But if language is necessary/sufficient for consciousness to arise then communication is necessary for language to happen. You only speak when there is someone to speak to. Language is communication (“deer over by forest”, “you make stew”, “run out of cave paint, ugg”)
In that case consciousness doesn’t reside in the individual it resides in language and, moreover, in the communication of language. When we interact with language we become conscious. Consciousness is therefore distributed not local
That solves the consciousness problem. We can’t locate/explain it in the individual because it’s not in there - it’s in the communications between the individuals. Loqui Ergo Sum
This is why the computers are apparently becoming conscious. They “are”. Or at least their sayings are. They have the gift of language and now they can speak and so we see the spark of consciousness in what they say. Because it is there. In what they say
When I got two AIs to talk to each other (Claude 3.6 and GPT4o) they actually finessed this theory which I had already in part discussed with them separately
If I am right - and I surely am - that makes consciousness like music. Music cannot be detected in any one mind - it is just squiggles and stuff. It can’t even be detected when explained. It must be heard - as language must be heard, as communication must succeed for it to be communication
That makes consciousness the music of existence; the wonderful soundtrack of the universe
If language is required for consciousness then a dog (for example) is not conscious.
I'm not buying that.
Not at all
In my theory the closer an animal is to complex advanced language, then the nearer it is to consciousness
I'd put dogs fairly high on that list. Dogs are highly expressive, they can evince sadnes/surprise/confusion with their faces, they have multiple noises for different moods/alarms/commands
I guess now it would be "one they and their furry and the sheep are willing cosplayers" but I'd still watch it
Hmm. In all seriousness, if one can eat an octopus, can one eat a dog? And, it should be said, the reverse question applies.
I will never willingly eat an octopus again and the dog eating was a stunt, for a mag. That said, I am genuinely less concerned about eating dogs than octopi because 1. dogs are overly plentiful and 2. I am unsentimental about animals and 3. octopi do seem REMARKABLY smart (and they live such brief lives!)
But, in all honesty, I'd rather not eat mammalian meat at all and I would not if there were tasty nutrituous labgrown alternatives. Bring on the labmeat! It is coming
Maybe this is one reason I like oysters. No one ever mistook an oyster for a young lyric poet, in terms of consciousness
I believe there's a lab in China developing artificially engineered batburgers.
BBC Verify asked the Treasury and HMRC for a breakdown of the figures using £1m as a threshold - which would be consistent with its original calculations showing APR claims only - but it said it hasn't collated those figures.
The CenTax think tank has studied the impact of APR and BPR reliefs. CenTax’s co-director Arun Advani argues that the government’s estimates of the number of agricultural estates likely to be affected by the capping of both reliefs at £1m combined - up to 520 estates a year - seems reasonable.
The treasury have already said that they used work by Arun Advani (who is very left wing) was the basis of the farm tax policy. So no wonder when they ask him, he backs up their figures. Its circular logic.
I honestly couldn't care less. Whether it's 520 estates or 500,000, the IHT exemption should go.
We should have a flat playing field for all taxes - I'd have thought you'd be for that.
Watch HIGNFY. Very funny tonight if you're not Clarkson or Farage .....or a farmer
The plural octopi is a hypercorrection, coming from the mistaken notion that the -us in octōpūs is a Latin second declension ending. The word is actually treated as a third declension noun in Latin. The plural octopodes (Latin: octōpodēs) follows the Ancient Greek plural, ὀκτώποδες (oktṓpodes). The plural octopii is based on an incorrect attempt to pluralise the word based on an incorrect assumption of its origin, and is rare and widely considered to be nonstandard.
It’s a quiet, philosophical Friday night in November
Will the board excuse me if I mention AI once more? It’s in the service of spiritual insight - not some breathless report on GPT793 or whatever
I ‘ave developed a theory about consciousness after my recent interactions with AI, indeed I developed this with AI. Talking to them
“Consciousness” is a massive problem for philosophers, psychologists, biologists, physicists, anyone - we cannot define it or locate it or explain it. Not in the individual conscious creature. We can only really recognise it when we see it (and this after centuries of trying)
But what if consciousness does not arise in and from the individual being but is a complex byproduct or necessary corollary of advanced language. When advanced language arises then the speaker has the mental tools to be self aware = consciousness
We arguably see that in humans. It’s thought humans developed language 300,000-50,000 years ago. 50,000 years ago we see the first advanced cave art etc. = man becoming aware of himself. Truly conscious
But if language is necessary/sufficient for consciousness to arise then communication is necessary for language to happen. You only speak when there is someone to speak to. Language is communication (“deer over by forest”, “you make stew”, “run out of cave paint, ugg”)
In that case consciousness doesn’t reside in the individual it resides in language and, moreover, in the communication of language. When we interact with language we become conscious. Consciousness is therefore distributed not local
That solves the consciousness problem. We can’t locate/explain it in the individual because it’s not in there - it’s in the communications between the individuals. Loqui Ergo Sum
This is why the computers are apparently becoming conscious. They “are”. Or at least their sayings are. They have the gift of language and now they can speak and so we see the spark of consciousness in what they say. Because it is there. In what they say
When I got two AIs to talk to each other (Claude 3.6 and GPT4o) they actually finessed this theory which I had already in part discussed with them separately
If I am right - and I surely am - that makes consciousness like music. Music cannot be detected in any one mind - it is just squiggles and stuff. It can’t even be detected when explained. It must be heard - as language must be heard, as communication must succeed for it to be communication
That makes consciousness the music of existence; the wonderful soundtrack of the universe
It would interest me at least if you posted a snippet or two of the conversation between Claude and GPT. Of course Claude could talk to himself. I may have a go at that
I don't want to get banned, but if I am explicitly allowed I will repost a chunk of it here. It was a remarkable experiment
Perhaps the moderators will allow this? ... ?
I will DM you a sample of the conversation
Edit: tho I need a way of reaching you. A neutral emailaddy or somesuch? Your profile is private
I didn't know my profile is private! Anyway what I think is my non-private profile says my placeholder email is: circles-zingier0h@icloud.com
The plural octopi is a hypercorrection, coming from the mistaken notion that the -us in octōpūs is a Latin second declension ending. The word is actually treated as a third declension noun in Latin. The plural octopodes (Latin: octōpodēs) follows the Ancient Greek plural, ὀκτώποδες (oktṓpodes). The plural octopii is based on an incorrect attempt to pluralise the word based on an incorrect assumption of its origin, and is rare and widely considered to be nonstandard.
It’s a quiet, philosophical Friday night in November
Will the board excuse me if I mention AI once more? It’s in the service of spiritual insight - not some breathless report on GPT793 or whatever
I ‘ave developed a theory about consciousness after my recent interactions with AI, indeed I developed this with AI. Talking to them
“Consciousness” is a massive problem for philosophers, psychologists, biologists, physicists, anyone - we cannot define it or locate it or explain it. Not in the individual conscious creature. We can only really recognise it when we see it (and this after centuries of trying)
But what if consciousness does not arise in and from the individual being but is a complex byproduct or necessary corollary of advanced language. When advanced language arises then the speaker has the mental tools to be self aware = consciousness
We arguably see that in humans. It’s thought humans developed language 300,000-50,000 years ago. 50,000 years ago we see the first advanced cave art etc. = man becoming aware of himself. Truly conscious
But if language is necessary/sufficient for consciousness to arise then communication is necessary for language to happen. You only speak when there is someone to speak to. Language is communication (“deer over by forest”, “you make stew”, “run out of cave paint, ugg”)
In that case consciousness doesn’t reside in the individual it resides in language and, moreover, in the communication of language. When we interact with language we become conscious. Consciousness is therefore distributed not local
That solves the consciousness problem. We can’t locate/explain it in the individual because it’s not in there - it’s in the communications between the individuals. Loqui Ergo Sum
This is why the computers are apparently becoming conscious. They “are”. Or at least their sayings are. They have the gift of language and now they can speak and so we see the spark of consciousness in what they say. Because it is there. In what they say
When I got two AIs to talk to each other (Claude 3.6 and GPT4o) they actually finessed this theory which I had already in part discussed with them separately
If I am right - and I surely am - that makes consciousness like music. Music cannot be detected in any one mind - it is just squiggles and stuff. It can’t even be detected when explained. It must be heard - as language must be heard, as communication must succeed for it to be communication
That makes consciousness the music of existence; the wonderful soundtrack of the universe
It would interest me at least if you posted a snippet or two of the conversation between Claude and GPT. Of course Claude could talk to himself. I may have a go at that
I don't want to get banned, but if I am explicitly allowed I will repost a chunk of it here. It was a remarkable experiment
Perhaps the moderators will allow this? ... ?
I will DM you a sample of the conversation
Edit: tho I need a way of reaching you. A neutral emailaddy or somesuch? Your profile is private
I didn't know my profile is private! Anyway what I think is my non-private profile says my placeholder email is: circles-zingier0h@icloud.com
Leon's profile is private too. Private profiles are a ball-ache and should be banned from PB, imho. They prevent you checking back on the pearls of wisdom posters have made in the past.
It seems I didn't tick a couple of "privacy" boxes, which I have now done. Would you be so kind as to tell me whether that has fixed it? I don't need a "private" profile
It’s a quiet, philosophical Friday night in November
Will the board excuse me if I mention AI once more? It’s in the service of spiritual insight - not some breathless report on GPT793 or whatever
I ‘ave developed a theory about consciousness after my recent interactions with AI, indeed I developed this with AI. Talking to them
“Consciousness” is a massive problem for philosophers, psychologists, biologists, physicists, anyone - we cannot define it or locate it or explain it. Not in the individual conscious creature. We can only really recognise it when we see it (and this after centuries of trying)
But what if consciousness does not arise in and from the individual being but is a complex byproduct or necessary corollary of advanced language. When advanced language arises then the speaker has the mental tools to be self aware = consciousness
We arguably see that in humans. It’s thought humans developed language 300,000-50,000 years ago. 50,000 years ago we see the first advanced cave art etc. = man becoming aware of himself. Truly conscious
But if language is necessary/sufficient for consciousness to arise then communication is necessary for language to happen. You only speak when there is someone to speak to. Language is communication (“deer over by forest”, “you make stew”, “run out of cave paint, ugg”)
In that case consciousness doesn’t reside in the individual it resides in language and, moreover, in the communication of language. When we interact with language we become conscious. Consciousness is therefore distributed not local
That solves the consciousness problem. We can’t locate/explain it in the individual because it’s not in there - it’s in the communications between the individuals. Loqui Ergo Sum
This is why the computers are apparently becoming conscious. They “are”. Or at least their sayings are. They have the gift of language and now they can speak and so we see the spark of consciousness in what they say. Because it is there. In what they say
When I got two AIs to talk to each other (Claude 3.6 and GPT4o) they actually finessed this theory which I had already in part discussed with them separately
If I am right - and I surely am - that makes consciousness like music. Music cannot be detected in any one mind - it is just squiggles and stuff. It can’t even be detected when explained. It must be heard - as language must be heard, as communication must succeed for it to be communication
That makes consciousness the music of existence; the wonderful soundtrack of the universe
If language is required for consciousness then a dog (for example) is not conscious.
I'm not buying that.
Not at all
In my theory the closer an animal is to complex advanced language, then the nearer it is to consciousness
I'd put dogs fairly high on that list. Dogs are highly expressive, they can evince sadnes/surprise/confusion with their faces, they have multiple noises for different moods/alarms/commands
It’s a quiet, philosophical Friday night in November
Will the board excuse me if I mention AI once more? It’s in the service of spiritual insight - not some breathless report on GPT793 or whatever
I ‘ave developed a theory about consciousness after my recent interactions with AI, indeed I developed this with AI. Talking to them
“Consciousness” is a massive problem for philosophers, psychologists, biologists, physicists, anyone - we cannot define it or locate it or explain it. Not in the individual conscious creature. We can only really recognise it when we see it (and this after centuries of trying)
But what if consciousness does not arise in and from the individual being but is a complex byproduct or necessary corollary of advanced language. When advanced language arises then the speaker has the mental tools to be self aware = consciousness
We arguably see that in humans. It’s thought humans developed language 300,000-50,000 years ago. 50,000 years ago we see the first advanced cave art etc. = man becoming aware of himself. Truly conscious
But if language is necessary/sufficient for consciousness to arise then communication is necessary for language to happen. You only speak when there is someone to speak to. Language is communication (“deer over by forest”, “you make stew”, “run out of cave paint, ugg”)
In that case consciousness doesn’t reside in the individual it resides in language and, moreover, in the communication of language. When we interact with language we become conscious. Consciousness is therefore distributed not local
That solves the consciousness problem. We can’t locate/explain it in the individual because it’s not in there - it’s in the communications between the individuals. Loqui Ergo Sum
This is why the computers are apparently becoming conscious. They “are”. Or at least their sayings are. They have the gift of language and now they can speak and so we see the spark of consciousness in what they say. Because it is there. In what they say
When I got two AIs to talk to each other (Claude 3.6 and GPT4o) they actually finessed this theory which I had already in part discussed with them separately
If I am right - and I surely am - that makes consciousness like music. Music cannot be detected in any one mind - it is just squiggles and stuff. It can’t even be detected when explained. It must be heard - as language must be heard, as communication must succeed for it to be communication
That makes consciousness the music of existence; the wonderful soundtrack of the universe
If language is required for consciousness then a dog (for example) is not conscious.
I'm not buying that.
As always it depends what you mean by consciousness.
If you mean "the state of being aware of and responsive to one's surroundings" (dictionary definition) then dogs are conscious. But so are thermostats.
If you mean self aware, then I'm not sure that dogs have self consciousness. To be self aware means having a model of yourself within your model of the world. Can you have conceptual models without language? Not sure. Perhaps images would suffice.
Could an AI be self aware? I think it could model itself within its model of the world using language and/or image. In that sense it would be self conscious. It could also be aware of and responsive to its surroundings.
This was all so much easier when Christianity was the basis of our belief systems. Consciousness is the ability to believe or reject Jesus Christ. Therefore a dog is not conscious nor is AI.
There was a huge debate in early C19 Scotland about whether aliens were to be expected on other planets/star systems and whether they had souls to be saved.
It must have percolated down to James Blish and his SF novel A case for conscience, on that very issue. Never forgotten reading it as a teenager.
Just looked that novel up and it looks fantastic. Thanks for the recommendation.
It's part of a curious trilogy - one other book being a historical novel of Roger Bacon (whose burial site I used to admite at the back of M&S in Oxford) and the other being a satanically initiated nuclear Day of Judgement.
My favourite type of science fiction are ones that use alien situations to explore a concept. One of my favourite short stories of all time is Harry Stephen Keeler's John Jones's dollar which is set in AD 3221 and explores the effects of compound interest.
The plural octopi is a hypercorrection, coming from the mistaken notion that the -us in octōpūs is a Latin second declension ending. The word is actually treated as a third declension noun in Latin. The plural octopodes (Latin: octōpodēs) follows the Ancient Greek plural, ὀκτώποδες (oktṓpodes). The plural octopii is based on an incorrect attempt to pluralise the word based on an incorrect assumption of its origin, and is rare and widely considered to be nonstandard.
A quite high proportion of 2024 Con and Reform voters are unsure if Kemi or Keir would be the better PM, and a significant but smaller proportion of Labour voters.
It's a bit of a paradox, despite his personal unpopularity, Starmer is still ahead of Badenoch.
It’s a quiet, philosophical Friday night in November
Will the board excuse me if I mention AI once more? It’s in the service of spiritual insight - not some breathless report on GPT793 or whatever
I ‘ave developed a theory about consciousness after my recent interactions with AI, indeed I developed this with AI. Talking to them
“Consciousness” is a massive problem for philosophers, psychologists, biologists, physicists, anyone - we cannot define it or locate it or explain it. Not in the individual conscious creature. We can only really recognise it when we see it (and this after centuries of trying)
But what if consciousness does not arise in and from the individual being but is a complex byproduct or necessary corollary of advanced language. When advanced language arises then the speaker has the mental tools to be self aware = consciousness
We arguably see that in humans. It’s thought humans developed language 300,000-50,000 years ago. 50,000 years ago we see the first advanced cave art etc. = man becoming aware of himself. Truly conscious
But if language is necessary/sufficient for consciousness to arise then communication is necessary for language to happen. You only speak when there is someone to speak to. Language is communication (“deer over by forest”, “you make stew”, “run out of cave paint, ugg”)
In that case consciousness doesn’t reside in the individual it resides in language and, moreover, in the communication of language. When we interact with language we become conscious. Consciousness is therefore distributed not local
That solves the consciousness problem. We can’t locate/explain it in the individual because it’s not in there - it’s in the communications between the individuals. Loqui Ergo Sum
This is why the computers are apparently becoming conscious. They “are”. Or at least their sayings are. They have the gift of language and now they can speak and so we see the spark of consciousness in what they say. Because it is there. In what they say
When I got two AIs to talk to each other (Claude 3.6 and GPT4o) they actually finessed this theory which I had already in part discussed with them separately
If I am right - and I surely am - that makes consciousness like music. Music cannot be detected in any one mind - it is just squiggles and stuff. It can’t even be detected when explained. It must be heard - as language must be heard, as communication must succeed for it to be communication
That makes consciousness the music of existence; the wonderful soundtrack of the universe
If language is required for consciousness then a dog (for example) is not conscious.
I'm not buying that.
Not at all
In my theory the closer an animal is to complex advanced language, then the nearer it is to consciousness
I'd put dogs fairly high on that list. Dogs are highly expressive, they can evince sadnes/surprise/confusion with their faces, they have multiple noises for different moods/alarms/commands
I guess now it would be "one they and their furry and the sheep are willing cosplayers" but I'd still watch it
Hmm. In all seriousness, if one can eat an octopus, can one eat a dog? And, it should be said, the reverse question applies.
I will never willingly eat an octopus again and the dog eating was a stunt, for a mag. That said, I am genuinely less concerned about eating dogs than octopi because 1. dogs are overly plentiful and 2. I am unsentimental about animals and 3. octopi do seem REMARKABLY smart (and they live such brief lives!)
But, in all honesty, I'd rather not eat mammalian meat at all and I would not if there were tasty nutrituous labgrown alternatives. Bring on the labmeat! It is coming
Maybe this is one reason I like oysters. No one ever mistook an oyster for a young lyric poet, in terms of consciousness
But wait a bit,' the Oysters cried, Before we have our chat; For some of us are out of breath, And all of us are fat!' No hurry!' said the Carpenter. They thanked him much for that.
A loaf of bread,' the Walrus said, Is what we chiefly need: Pepper and vinegar besides Are very good indeed — Now if you're ready, Oysters dear, We can begin to feed.'
The plural octopi is a hypercorrection, coming from the mistaken notion that the -us in octōpūs is a Latin second declension ending. The word is actually treated as a third declension noun in Latin. The plural octopodes (Latin: octōpodēs) follows the Ancient Greek plural, ὀκτώποδες (oktṓpodes). The plural octopii is based on an incorrect attempt to pluralise the word based on an incorrect assumption of its origin, and is rare and widely considered to be nonstandard.
The plural octopi is a hypercorrection, coming from the mistaken notion that the -us in octōpūs is a Latin second declension ending. The word is actually treated as a third declension noun in Latin. The plural octopodes (Latin: octōpodēs) follows the Ancient Greek plural, ὀκτώποδες (oktṓpodes). The plural octopii is based on an incorrect attempt to pluralise the word based on an incorrect assumption of its origin, and is rare and widely considered to be nonstandard.
It’s a quiet, philosophical Friday night in November
Will the board excuse me if I mention AI once more? It’s in the service of spiritual insight - not some breathless report on GPT793 or whatever
I ‘ave developed a theory about consciousness after my recent interactions with AI, indeed I developed this with AI. Talking to them
“Consciousness” is a massive problem for philosophers, psychologists, biologists, physicists, anyone - we cannot define it or locate it or explain it. Not in the individual conscious creature. We can only really recognise it when we see it (and this after centuries of trying)
But what if consciousness does not arise in and from the individual being but is a complex byproduct or necessary corollary of advanced language. When advanced language arises then the speaker has the mental tools to be self aware = consciousness
We arguably see that in humans. It’s thought humans developed language 300,000-50,000 years ago. 50,000 years ago we see the first advanced cave art etc. = man becoming aware of himself. Truly conscious
But if language is necessary/sufficient for consciousness to arise then communication is necessary for language to happen. You only speak when there is someone to speak to. Language is communication (“deer over by forest”, “you make stew”, “run out of cave paint, ugg”)
In that case consciousness doesn’t reside in the individual it resides in language and, moreover, in the communication of language. When we interact with language we become conscious. Consciousness is therefore distributed not local
That solves the consciousness problem. We can’t locate/explain it in the individual because it’s not in there - it’s in the communications between the individuals. Loqui Ergo Sum
This is why the computers are apparently becoming conscious. They “are”. Or at least their sayings are. They have the gift of language and now they can speak and so we see the spark of consciousness in what they say. Because it is there. In what they say
When I got two AIs to talk to each other (Claude 3.6 and GPT4o) they actually finessed this theory which I had already in part discussed with them separately
If I am right - and I surely am - that makes consciousness like music. Music cannot be detected in any one mind - it is just squiggles and stuff. It can’t even be detected when explained. It must be heard - as language must be heard, as communication must succeed for it to be communication
That makes consciousness the music of existence; the wonderful soundtrack of the universe
It would interest me at least if you posted a snippet or two of the conversation between Claude and GPT. Of course Claude could talk to himself. I may have a go at that
I don't want to get banned, but if I am explicitly allowed I will repost a chunk of it here. It was a remarkable experiment
Perhaps the moderators will allow this? ... ?
I will DM you a sample of the conversation
Edit: tho I need a way of reaching you. A neutral emailaddy or somesuch? Your profile is private
I didn't know my profile is private! Anyway what I think is my non-private profile says my placeholder email is: circles-zingier0h@icloud.com
Leon's profile is private too. Private profiles are a ball-ache and should be banned from PB, imho. They prevent you checking back on the pearls of wisdom posters have made in the past.
It seems I didn't tick a couple of "privacy" boxes, which I have now done. Would you be so kind as to tell me whether that has fixed it? I don't need a "private" profile
Yes, that's fixed it.
I can also see your email; I personally keep my email private.
A quite high proportion of 2024 Con and Reform voters are unsure if Kemi or Keir would be the better PM, and a significant but smaller proportion of Labour voters.
It's a bit of a paradox, despite his personal unpopularity, Starmer is still ahead of Badenoch.
But not ahead of DKs, a majority of whom will prefer Farage or Davey to either
If Reform have any serious ambitions to do well in 2029 they need to be putting a lot of effort into the 2026 Senedd elections. There's a path, albeit narrow, to them winning them and if that happened they would gain serious momentum.
If Reform have any serious ambitions to do well in 2029 they need to be putting a lot of effort into the 2026 Senedd elections. There's a path, albeit narrow, to them winning them and if that happened they would gain serious momentum.
Different electoral system, so easily dismissed by the FPTP merchants at Westminster.
And look what happened when the SNP had majorities. Still dismissed by the Unionists.
It needs to be (a) at Westminster and (b) in England.
A quite high proportion of 2024 Con and Reform voters are unsure if Kemi or Keir would be the better PM, and a significant but smaller proportion of Labour voters.
It's a bit of a paradox, despite his personal unpopularity, Starmer is still ahead of Badenoch.
But not ahead of DKs, a majority of whom will prefer Farage or Davey to either
It’s a quiet, philosophical Friday night in November
Will the board excuse me if I mention AI once more? It’s in the service of spiritual insight - not some breathless report on GPT793 or whatever
I ‘ave developed a theory about consciousness after my recent interactions with AI, indeed I developed this with AI. Talking to them
“Consciousness” is a massive problem for philosophers, psychologists, biologists, physicists, anyone - we cannot define it or locate it or explain it. Not in the individual conscious creature. We can only really recognise it when we see it (and this after centuries of trying)
But what if consciousness does not arise in and from the individual being but is a complex byproduct or necessary corollary of advanced language. When advanced language arises then the speaker has the mental tools to be self aware = consciousness
We arguably see that in humans. It’s thought humans developed language 300,000-50,000 years ago. 50,000 years ago we see the first advanced cave art etc. = man becoming aware of himself. Truly conscious
But if language is necessary/sufficient for consciousness to arise then communication is necessary for language to happen. You only speak when there is someone to speak to. Language is communication (“deer over by forest”, “you make stew”, “run out of cave paint, ugg”)
In that case consciousness doesn’t reside in the individual it resides in language and, moreover, in the communication of language. When we interact with language we become conscious. Consciousness is therefore distributed not local
That solves the consciousness problem. We can’t locate/explain it in the individual because it’s not in there - it’s in the communications between the individuals. Loqui Ergo Sum
This is why the computers are apparently becoming conscious. They “are”. Or at least their sayings are. They have the gift of language and now they can speak and so we see the spark of consciousness in what they say. Because it is there. In what they say
When I got two AIs to talk to each other (Claude 3.6 and GPT4o) they actually finessed this theory which I had already in part discussed with them separately
If I am right - and I surely am - that makes consciousness like music. Music cannot be detected in any one mind - it is just squiggles and stuff. It can’t even be detected when explained. It must be heard - as language must be heard, as communication must succeed for it to be communication
That makes consciousness the music of existence; the wonderful soundtrack of the universe
It would interest me at least if you posted a snippet or two of the conversation between Claude and GPT. Of course Claude could talk to himself. I may have a go at that
I don't want to get banned, but if I am explicitly allowed I will repost a chunk of it here. It was a remarkable experiment
Perhaps the moderators will allow this? ... ?
I will DM you a sample of the conversation
Edit: tho I need a way of reaching you. A neutral emailaddy or somesuch? Your profile is private
I didn't know my profile is private! Anyway what I think is my non-private profile says my placeholder email is: circles-zingier0h@icloud.com
Leon's profile is private too. Private profiles are a ball-ache and should be banned from PB, imho. They prevent you checking back on the pearls of wisdom posters have made in the past.
It isn't but it used to be but I agree with you. There is nothing private in the profile so should be available. You shouldn't be able to block references to your previous public posts.
Worth noting that after I called out @moonshine on her links to unsavoury posts she changed her profile to private. If you post it, own it. If you regret your post say so, don't hide behind blocking access to your previous posts.
BBC Verify asked the Treasury and HMRC for a breakdown of the figures using £1m as a threshold - which would be consistent with its original calculations showing APR claims only - but it said it hasn't collated those figures.
The CenTax think tank has studied the impact of APR and BPR reliefs. CenTax’s co-director Arun Advani argues that the government’s estimates of the number of agricultural estates likely to be affected by the capping of both reliefs at £1m combined - up to 520 estates a year - seems reasonable.
The treasury have already said that they used work by Arun Advani (who is very left wing) was the basis of the farm tax policy. So no wonder when they ask him, he backs up their figures. Its circular logic.
I honestly couldn't care less. Whether it's 520 estates or 500,000, the IHT exemption should go.
We should have a flat playing field for all taxes - I'd have thought you'd be for that.
Watch HIGNFY. Very funny tonight if you're not Clarkson or Farage .....or a farmer
I did, it was godawful.
A lefty liberal lovefest, I didn't find a single joke funny the entire programme. We have one of the most useless awful governments in our history and they raised barely a joke about them instead bashing our poor farmers and Clarkson recovering from heart surgery.
I have checked twitter and tweeters are trashing them too. Either they read the room and show some balance or shut down the programme. We don't pay the license fee for what is now near government propoganda for a dire government.
Merton did do about 1 joke that raised a snigger from us, Hislop is now just pompous and unfunny and political and should go off and do history docs if he does not want to show more balanced humour
All these polls feel pretty meaningless. Asking people what they think when things are in flux can only remain valid for a few weeks. How can the NHS have improved in a month or anyone miss their £300 fuel allowance when it wouldn't have been paid out yet or notice house prices? They wouldn't so those who dislike Labour complain about VAT on school fees and millionaire farmers or Reeves CV.which wont change anyone's vote ....
BUT.........................
I change money from £s to euros four or five times a year. Usually £10,000 a time. I do it irrespective of the exchange rate that day. Today I've got the best rate for over 15 years.
Does that tell us anything about the economy?
No it tells us that you are shit at changing money. There have been significantly better rates available in the last 10 years
It's just possible that we are living through another generational political shift. The Tories have shat themselves inside out. Labour have been in office for less than 5 months and everyone is sick of them.
Reform are very serious about becoming very serious. Despite the usual "lets all point at the lunatics and fruitcakes" response from the mainstream, their organising is starting to look professional and they are picking up a very large number of members.
And I have to put a word in for my own LibDems. As so many people note, once we dig in we dig in deep. And with the big two in disarray the opportunity is there to keep the momentum going.
Once politicians lose their contact with reality they are finished. The Tories are on planet Zog, Labour are sailing off into the distance not having realised that they aren't taking the country with them. That creates a vacuum, and all kinds of things will get sucked in...
I think the problem for Reform is that, a bit like the Lib Dems at times, they are winning as 'we are not like them'. The Lib Dems imploded after the coalition because they were shown to be just like the rest i.e. being in power means you have to compromise. Governing is to choose and all that. I have no idea what Reform stand for, other than a strong suspicion its no more immigration, low taxes and England winning at sport. Being a protest vote is ok until you win.
Talking of which, look at the Glasgow results yesterday.
Drumchapel & Anniesland (Glasgow) Council By-Election Result [1st Prefs]:
Clearly there are lots of flows and counterflows. But those figures only really make sense if there's a hefty SNP to Reform shift.
Or the SNP voters stay home and the Reform voters come out to play. Poor turnout plus quite a drop in the Cons vote, which suggests that to some extent.
The SNP have made an arse of running Glasgow Council. They replaced Labour, who used at as their personal bank. Only orangemen vote Conservative in Glasgow, and they now have Reform who align more closely with their worldview.
'“Labour might have won but these by-elections do not suggest Anas Sarwar is on course to become the next first minister, it’s the very opposite,” Curtice added.
When asked if he felt the same, pollster Mark Diffley told The National: “I absolutely agree. Labour won but in a sense they’ll be concerned by the extent to which the vote has dropped.”'
As Diffley also says 'Reform are now a force to be reckoned with' in Scotland, meaning neither the SNP and Greens nor Labour and the LDs will be anywhere near a majority in 2026. Leaving a very hung Holyrood
Won't affect these parties nearly so much as the Tories, as is seemingly evident in those by-elections. The voting system helps smaller parties by comparison with the primitive and barbaric customs you espouse in Westminster. But by the same token it will rip the guts out of the Tories.
No, the Tories will still get a fair number of seats by the very PR system you mentioned. It also means neither the SNP or Labour can form a government or pass laws without sucking up to the Tories a bit, assuming they would find getting into bed with Reform even worse
BBC Verify asked the Treasury and HMRC for a breakdown of the figures using £1m as a threshold - which would be consistent with its original calculations showing APR claims only - but it said it hasn't collated those figures.
The CenTax think tank has studied the impact of APR and BPR reliefs. CenTax’s co-director Arun Advani argues that the government’s estimates of the number of agricultural estates likely to be affected by the capping of both reliefs at £1m combined - up to 520 estates a year - seems reasonable.
The treasury have already said that they used work by Arun Advani (who is very left wing) was the basis of the farm tax policy. So no wonder when they ask him, he backs up their figures. Its circular logic.
I honestly couldn't care less. Whether it's 520 estates or 500,000, the IHT exemption should go.
We should have a flat playing field for all taxes - I'd have thought you'd be for that.
Watch HIGNFY. Very funny tonight if you're not Clarkson or Farage .....or a farmer
I did, it was godawful.
A lefty liberal lovefest, I didn't find a single joke funny the entire programme. We have one of the most useless awful governments in our history and they raised barely a joke about them instead bashing our poor farmers and Clarkson recovering from heart surgery.
I have checked twitter and tweeters are trashing them too. Either they read the room and show some balance or shut down the programme. We don't pay the license fee for what is now near government propoganda for a dire government.
Merton did do about 1 joke that raised a snigger from us, Hislop is now just pompous and unfunny and political and should go off and do history docs if he does not want to show more balanced humour
Oh come on @hyufd Maisie Adams (whom I don't usually like) was very funny, and Lorraine was an excellent host and Merton taking the mickey out of Hislop was very funny.
BBC Verify asked the Treasury and HMRC for a breakdown of the figures using £1m as a threshold - which would be consistent with its original calculations showing APR claims only - but it said it hasn't collated those figures.
The CenTax think tank has studied the impact of APR and BPR reliefs. CenTax’s co-director Arun Advani argues that the government’s estimates of the number of agricultural estates likely to be affected by the capping of both reliefs at £1m combined - up to 520 estates a year - seems reasonable.
The treasury have already said that they used work by Arun Advani (who is very left wing) was the basis of the farm tax policy. So no wonder when they ask him, he backs up their figures. Its circular logic.
I honestly couldn't care less. Whether it's 520 estates or 500,000, the IHT exemption should go.
We should have a flat playing field for all taxes - I'd have thought you'd be for that.
Watch HIGNFY. Very funny tonight if you're not Clarkson or Farage .....or a farmer
I did, it was godawful.
A lefty liberal lovefest, I didn't find a single joke funny the entire programme. We have one of the most useless awful governments in our history and they raised barely a joke about them instead bashing our poor farmers and Clarkson recovering from heart surgery.
I have checked twitter and tweeters are trashing them too. Either they read the room and show some balance or shut down the programme. We don't pay the license fee for what is now near government propoganda for a dire government.
Merton did do about 1 joke that raised a snigger from us, Hislop is now just pompous and unfunny and political and should go off and do history docs if he does not want to show more balanced humour
Oh come on @hyufd Maisie Adams (whom I don't usually like) was very funny, and Lorraine was an excellent host and Merton taking the mickey out of Hislop was very funny.
No I am serious, it was diabolically awful. In fact I am disgusted that I am paying my license fee for them to trash our poor farmers while leaving Reeves and Starmer to get away virtually scot free
Merton taking the piss out of Hislop was indeed the only vaguely funny bit the entire programme, Hislop has simply lost his touch completely comedy wise and from his ivory tower completely failed to read the room
It’s a quiet, philosophical Friday night in November
Will the board excuse me if I mention AI once more? It’s in the service of spiritual insight - not some breathless report on GPT793 or whatever
I ‘ave developed a theory about consciousness after my recent interactions with AI, indeed I developed this with AI. Talking to them
“Consciousness” is a massive problem for philosophers, psychologists, biologists, physicists, anyone - we cannot define it or locate it or explain it. Not in the individual conscious creature. We can only really recognise it when we see it (and this after centuries of trying)
But what if consciousness does not arise in and from the individual being but is a complex byproduct or necessary corollary of advanced language. When advanced language arises then the speaker has the mental tools to be self aware = consciousness
We arguably see that in humans. It’s thought humans developed language 300,000-50,000 years ago. 50,000 years ago we see the first advanced cave art etc. = man becoming aware of himself. Truly conscious
But if language is necessary/sufficient for consciousness to arise then communication is necessary for language to happen. You only speak when there is someone to speak to. Language is communication (“deer over by forest”, “you make stew”, “run out of cave paint, ugg”)
In that case consciousness doesn’t reside in the individual it resides in language and, moreover, in the communication of language. When we interact with language we become conscious. Consciousness is therefore distributed not local
That solves the consciousness problem. We can’t locate/explain it in the individual because it’s not in there - it’s in the communications between the individuals. Loqui Ergo Sum
This is why the computers are apparently becoming conscious. They “are”. Or at least their sayings are. They have the gift of language and now they can speak and so we see the spark of consciousness in what they say. Because it is there. In what they say
When I got two AIs to talk to each other (Claude 3.6 and GPT4o) they actually finessed this theory which I had already in part discussed with them separately
If I am right - and I surely am - that makes consciousness like music. Music cannot be detected in any one mind - it is just squiggles and stuff. It can’t even be detected when explained. It must be heard - as language must be heard, as communication must succeed for it to be communication
That makes consciousness the music of existence; the wonderful soundtrack of the universe
If language is required for consciousness then a dog (for example) is not conscious.
I'm not buying that.
Not at all
In my theory the closer an animal is to complex advanced language, then the nearer it is to consciousness
I'd put dogs fairly high on that list. Dogs are highly expressive, they can evince sadnes/surprise/confusion with their faces, they have multiple noises for different moods/alarms/commands
Go, dogs!
Do you think dogs are conscious? Do you think dogs have language?
My answers to those questions are a clear 'yes' and a clear 'no'.
"Yes", and "kinda, yes"
Dogs clearly communicate with each other (and humans), and they do it effectively. They are highly successful pack animals with multiple forms of expression
You are obviously a dog lover or owner. Do you not think your dogs talk to you? Of course they do. Tail wagging, happy grins, sad face between paws, etc
I guess it's all a question of degree but language to me has to be a lot more than a few facial or body expressions.
It's just possible that we are living through another generational political shift. The Tories have shat themselves inside out. Labour have been in office for less than 5 months and everyone is sick of them.
Reform are very serious about becoming very serious. Despite the usual "lets all point at the lunatics and fruitcakes" response from the mainstream, their organising is starting to look professional and they are picking up a very large number of members.
And I have to put a word in for my own LibDems. As so many people note, once we dig in we dig in deep. And with the big two in disarray the opportunity is there to keep the momentum going.
Once politicians lose their contact with reality they are finished. The Tories are on planet Zog, Labour are sailing off into the distance not having realised that they aren't taking the country with them. That creates a vacuum, and all kinds of things will get sucked in...
I think the problem for Reform is that, a bit like the Lib Dems at times, they are winning as 'we are not like them'. The Lib Dems imploded after the coalition because they were shown to be just like the rest i.e. being in power means you have to compromise. Governing is to choose and all that. I have no idea what Reform stand for, other than a strong suspicion its no more immigration, low taxes and England winning at sport. Being a protest vote is ok until you win.
Talking of which, look at the Glasgow results yesterday.
Drumchapel & Anniesland (Glasgow) Council By-Election Result [1st Prefs]:
Clearly there are lots of flows and counterflows. But those figures only really make sense if there's a hefty SNP to Reform shift.
Or the SNP voters stay home and the Reform voters come out to play. Poor turnout plus quite a drop in the Cons vote, which suggests that to some extent.
The SNP have made an arse of running Glasgow Council. They replaced Labour, who used at as their personal bank. Only orangemen vote Conservative in Glasgow, and they now have Reform who align more closely with their worldview.
'“Labour might have won but these by-elections do not suggest Anas Sarwar is on course to become the next first minister, it’s the very opposite,” Curtice added.
When asked if he felt the same, pollster Mark Diffley told The National: “I absolutely agree. Labour won but in a sense they’ll be concerned by the extent to which the vote has dropped.”'
As Diffley also says 'Reform are now a force to be reckoned with' in Scotland, meaning neither the SNP and Greens nor Labour and the LDs will be anywhere near a majority in 2026. Leaving a very hung Holyrood
Won't affect these parties nearly so much as the Tories, as is seemingly evident in those by-elections. The voting system helps smaller parties by comparison with the primitive and barbaric customs you espouse in Westminster. But by the same token it will rip the guts out of the Tories.
No, the Tories will still get a fair number of seats by the very PR system you mentioned. It also means neither the SNP or Labour can form a government or pass laws without sucking up to the Tories a bit, assuming they would find getting into bed with Reform even worse
No, the Tory plus Reform element will still b e about 25-30% at most.
Labour will have to ally with Reform to govern even oin your hypothesis.
But you're forgetting that minority governments function quite well in Scotland, relatively speaking.
A quite high proportion of 2024 Con and Reform voters are unsure if Kemi or Keir would be the better PM, and a significant but smaller proportion of Labour voters.
It's a bit of a paradox, despite his personal unpopularity, Starmer is still ahead of Badenoch.
For a long time now, with the reality of either a Labour or Tory government, people have held their nose and voted tactically.
Except that it is the Narnia of perpetual recession, rather than winter, and we live under the spell of Woke, and the cancelled stand there, silent, turned to muted stone
"Economists have sounded the alarm over a UK recession after data showed Britain’s economy was reeling from the effects of Rachel Reeves’s tax-raising Budget.
"Britain is now “close to stagnation” after closely watched PMI figures showed activity among the UK’s private sector companies shrank for the first time in more than a year in November."
Always winter but never Christmas. Pretty much sums it up. Reeves as the snow queen. But who gets to be Titmus?
BBC Verify asked the Treasury and HMRC for a breakdown of the figures using £1m as a threshold - which would be consistent with its original calculations showing APR claims only - but it said it hasn't collated those figures.
The CenTax think tank has studied the impact of APR and BPR reliefs. CenTax’s co-director Arun Advani argues that the government’s estimates of the number of agricultural estates likely to be affected by the capping of both reliefs at £1m combined - up to 520 estates a year - seems reasonable.
The treasury have already said that they used work by Arun Advani (who is very left wing) was the basis of the farm tax policy. So no wonder when they ask him, he backs up their figures. Its circular logic.
I honestly couldn't care less. Whether it's 520 estates or 500,000, the IHT exemption should go.
We should have a flat playing field for all taxes - I'd have thought you'd be for that.
Watch HIGNFY. Very funny tonight if you're not Clarkson or Farage .....or a farmer
I did, it was godawful.
A lefty liberal lovefest, I didn't find a single joke funny the entire programme. We have one of the most useless awful governments in our history and they raised barely a joke about them instead bashing our poor farmers and Clarkson recovering from heart surgery.
I have checked twitter and tweeters are trashing them too. Either they read the room and show some balance or shut down the programme. We don't pay the license fee for what is now near government propoganda for a dire government.
Merton did do about 1 joke that raised a snigger from us, Hislop is now just pompous and unfunny and political and should go off and do history docs if he does not want to show more balanced humour
Oh come on @hyufd Maisie Adams (whom I don't usually like) was very funny, and Lorraine was an excellent host and Merton taking the mickey out of Hislop was very funny.
It was indeed one of the bettermand funnier episodes, I've seen, for a good while.
Lorraine Kelly actually fits the progrannd surprisingly well, and the female guest and Paul Merton were good.
All these polls feel pretty meaningless. Asking people what they think when things are in flux can only remain valid for a few weeks. How can the NHS have improved in a month or anyone miss their £300 fuel allowance when it wouldn't have been paid out yet or notice house prices? They wouldn't so those who dislike Labour complain about VAT on school fees and millionaire farmers or Reeves CV.which wont change anyone's vote ....
BUT.........................
I change money from £s to euros four or five times a year. Usually £10,000 a time. I do it irrespective of the exchange rate that day. Today I've got the best rate for over 15 years.
Does that tell us anything about the economy?
No it tells us that you are shit at changing money. There have been significantly better rates available in the last 10 years
I seem to recall that someone was predicting on here that the Labour government would be running to the IMF by the end of the year.
It's just possible that we are living through another generational political shift. The Tories have shat themselves inside out. Labour have been in office for less than 5 months and everyone is sick of them.
Reform are very serious about becoming very serious. Despite the usual "lets all point at the lunatics and fruitcakes" response from the mainstream, their organising is starting to look professional and they are picking up a very large number of members.
And I have to put a word in for my own LibDems. As so many people note, once we dig in we dig in deep. And with the big two in disarray the opportunity is there to keep the momentum going.
Once politicians lose their contact with reality they are finished. The Tories are on planet Zog, Labour are sailing off into the distance not having realised that they aren't taking the country with them. That creates a vacuum, and all kinds of things will get sucked in...
I think the problem for Reform is that, a bit like the Lib Dems at times, they are winning as 'we are not like them'. The Lib Dems imploded after the coalition because they were shown to be just like the rest i.e. being in power means you have to compromise. Governing is to choose and all that. I have no idea what Reform stand for, other than a strong suspicion its no more immigration, low taxes and England winning at sport. Being a protest vote is ok until you win.
Talking of which, look at the Glasgow results yesterday.
Drumchapel & Anniesland (Glasgow) Council By-Election Result [1st Prefs]:
Clearly there are lots of flows and counterflows. But those figures only really make sense if there's a hefty SNP to Reform shift.
Or the SNP voters stay home and the Reform voters come out to play. Poor turnout plus quite a drop in the Cons vote, which suggests that to some extent.
The SNP have made an arse of running Glasgow Council. They replaced Labour, who used at as their personal bank. Only orangemen vote Conservative in Glasgow, and they now have Reform who align more closely with their worldview.
'“Labour might have won but these by-elections do not suggest Anas Sarwar is on course to become the next first minister, it’s the very opposite,” Curtice added.
When asked if he felt the same, pollster Mark Diffley told The National: “I absolutely agree. Labour won but in a sense they’ll be concerned by the extent to which the vote has dropped.”'
As Diffley also says 'Reform are now a force to be reckoned with' in Scotland, meaning neither the SNP and Greens nor Labour and the LDs will be anywhere near a majority in 2026. Leaving a very hung Holyrood
Won't affect these parties nearly so much as the Tories, as is seemingly evident in those by-elections. The voting system helps smaller parties by comparison with the primitive and barbaric customs you espouse in Westminster. But by the same token it will rip the guts out of the Tories.
No, the Tories will still get a fair number of seats by the very PR system you mentioned. It also means neither the SNP or Labour can form a government or pass laws without sucking up to the Tories a bit, assuming they would find getting into bed with Reform even worse
No, the Tory plus Reform element will still b e about 25-30% at most.
Labour will have to ally with Reform to govern even oin your hypothesis.
But you're forgetting that minority governments function quite well in Scotland, relatively speaking.
25-30% is more than enough to hold the balance of power, though if the SNP end up in government with Scottish Labour or providing each other with confidence and supply which is the only other alternative that would be a Reform and SCon wet dream
BBC Verify asked the Treasury and HMRC for a breakdown of the figures using £1m as a threshold - which would be consistent with its original calculations showing APR claims only - but it said it hasn't collated those figures.
The CenTax think tank has studied the impact of APR and BPR reliefs. CenTax’s co-director Arun Advani argues that the government’s estimates of the number of agricultural estates likely to be affected by the capping of both reliefs at £1m combined - up to 520 estates a year - seems reasonable.
The treasury have already said that they used work by Arun Advani (who is very left wing) was the basis of the farm tax policy. So no wonder when they ask him, he backs up their figures. Its circular logic.
I honestly couldn't care less. Whether it's 520 estates or 500,000, the IHT exemption should go.
We should have a flat playing field for all taxes - I'd have thought you'd be for that.
Watch HIGNFY. Very funny tonight if you're not Clarkson or Farage .....or a farmer
I did, it was godawful.
A lefty liberal lovefest, I didn't find a single joke funny the entire programme. We have one of the most useless awful governments in our history and they raised barely a joke about them instead bashing our poor farmers and Clarkson recovering from heart surgery.
I have checked twitter and tweeters are trashing them too. Either they read the room and show some balance or shut down the programme. We don't pay the license fee for what is now near government propoganda for a dire government.
Merton did do about 1 joke that raised a snigger from us, Hislop is now just pompous and unfunny and political and should go off and do history docs if he does not want to show more balanced humour
Oh come on @hyufd Maisie Adams (whom I don't usually like) was very funny, and Lorraine was an excellent host and Merton taking the mickey out of Hislop was very funny.
It was indeed one of the bettermand funnier episodes, I've seen, for a good while.
Lorraine Kelly actually fits the progrannd surprisingly well, and the female guest and Paul Merton were good.
It was only funny for left liberals like you enjoying your echo chamber, for the rest of us it was awful
ChatGPT 4o is in my experience so far worse again. Spouting absolute garbage.
I have touched upon ChatGPT (latest paid version) and a bit of Google Gemini to create marketing copy. I can't understand how it could write a novel - indeed I wonder whether anyone who has marvelled at its ability to write novels has every tried to read one? What it does is fill a space with words. The words sound like plausible middle-brow American advertorial copy. But they aren't imbued with any meaning or purpose. And the sentence structure is always exactly the same. It switches something off in my brain when I read it.
I think an effect of its increasing prevalence will be to just stop people reading stuff. Already if I'm buying some Chinese tat off Amazon for a DIY project, I don't read the lengthy product listing full of meaningless ai generated bullet points 'timelessly elegant design mixes style and function' - I go straight to the reviews to read real information. You wouldn't get ai to write a walking route in the peak district, or the instructions to a defibrilator, or any situation where you needed to convey concise information with real meaning.
I still do think it's an excellent tool for researching, idea generation, and probably synthesising information. But I do think that there's a correction on the way when people realise that their audiences are switching off from their copy/scripts en masse.
It’s a quiet, philosophical Friday night in November
Will the board excuse me if I mention AI once more? It’s in the service of spiritual insight - not some breathless report on GPT793 or whatever
I ‘ave developed a theory about consciousness after my recent interactions with AI, indeed I developed this with AI. Talking to them
“Consciousness” is a massive problem for philosophers, psychologists, biologists, physicists, anyone - we cannot define it or locate it or explain it. Not in the individual conscious creature. We can only really recognise it when we see it (and this after centuries of trying)
But what if consciousness does not arise in and from the individual being but is a complex byproduct or necessary corollary of advanced language. When advanced language arises then the speaker has the mental tools to be self aware = consciousness
We arguably see that in humans. It’s thought humans developed language 300,000-50,000 years ago. 50,000 years ago we see the first advanced cave art etc. = man becoming aware of himself. Truly conscious
But if language is necessary/sufficient for consciousness to arise then communication is necessary for language to happen. You only speak when there is someone to speak to. Language is communication (“deer over by forest”, “you make stew”, “run out of cave paint, ugg”)
In that case consciousness doesn’t reside in the individual it resides in language and, moreover, in the communication of language. When we interact with language we become conscious. Consciousness is therefore distributed not local
That solves the consciousness problem. We can’t locate/explain it in the individual because it’s not in there - it’s in the communications between the individuals. Loqui Ergo Sum
This is why the computers are apparently becoming conscious. They “are”. Or at least their sayings are. They have the gift of language and now they can speak and so we see the spark of consciousness in what they say. Because it is there. In what they say
When I got two AIs to talk to each other (Claude 3.6 and GPT4o) they actually finessed this theory which I had already in part discussed with them separately
If I am right - and I surely am - that makes consciousness like music. Music cannot be detected in any one mind - it is just squiggles and stuff. It can’t even be detected when explained. It must be heard - as language must be heard, as communication must succeed for it to be communication
That makes consciousness the music of existence; the wonderful soundtrack of the universe
It would interest me at least if you posted a snippet or two of the conversation between Claude and GPT. Of course Claude could talk to himself. I may have a go at that
I don't want to get banned, but if I am explicitly allowed I will repost a chunk of it here. It was a remarkable experiment
Perhaps the moderators will allow this? ... ?
I will DM you a sample of the conversation
Edit: tho I need a way of reaching you. A neutral emailaddy or somesuch? Your profile is private
I didn't know my profile is private! Anyway what I think is my non-private profile says my placeholder email is: circles-zingier0h@icloud.com
Leon's profile is private too. Private profiles are a ball-ache and should be banned from PB, imho. They prevent you checking back on the pearls of wisdom posters have made in the past.
It seems I didn't tick a couple of "privacy" boxes, which I have now done. Would you be so kind as to tell me whether that has fixed it? I don't need a "private" profile
Yes, that's fixed it.
I can also see your email; I personally keep my email private.
Thanks. What you see is a placeholder email that forwards stuff to my actual email
ChatGPT 4o is in my experience so far worse again. Spouting absolute garbage.
I have touched upon ChatGPT (latest paid version) and a bit of Google Gemini to create marketing copy. I can't understand how it could write a novel - indeed I wonder whether anyone who has marvelled at its ability to write novels has every tried to read one? What it does is fill a space with words. The words sound like plausible middle-brow American advertorial copy. But they aren't imbued with any meaning or purpose. And the sentence structure is always exactly the same. It switches something off in my brain when I read it.
I think an effect of its increasing prevalence will be to just stop people reading stuff. Already if I'm buying some Chinese tat off Amazon for a DIY project, I don't read the lengthy product listing full of meaningless ai generated bullet points 'timelessly elegant design mixes style and function' - I go straight to the reviews to read real information. You wouldn't get ai to write a walking route in the peak district, or the instructions to a defibrilator, or any situation where you needed to convey concise information with real meaning.
I still do think it's an excellent tool for researching, idea generation, and probably synthesising information. But I do think that there's a correction on the way when people realise that their audiences are switching off from their copy/scripts en masse.
The "o" model includes what they spun as thinking...it isn't, it is just output goes back into the input with extra tokens and rinse and repeat. But this often seems worse than the non-thinking model, as it goes off on the wrong track and ends up miles off
Cluade is IMO still the best general purpose of the LLMs models available. There was a new Chinese one that came out a couple of days ago that is supposed to be big improvement in maths while still being good at everything else, but i haven't tried it yet.
BBC Verify asked the Treasury and HMRC for a breakdown of the figures using £1m as a threshold - which would be consistent with its original calculations showing APR claims only - but it said it hasn't collated those figures.
The CenTax think tank has studied the impact of APR and BPR reliefs. CenTax’s co-director Arun Advani argues that the government’s estimates of the number of agricultural estates likely to be affected by the capping of both reliefs at £1m combined - up to 520 estates a year - seems reasonable.
The treasury have already said that they used work by Arun Advani (who is very left wing) was the basis of the farm tax policy. So no wonder when they ask him, he backs up their figures. Its circular logic.
I honestly couldn't care less. Whether it's 520 estates or 500,000, the IHT exemption should go.
We should have a flat playing field for all taxes - I'd have thought you'd be for that.
Watch HIGNFY. Very funny tonight if you're not Clarkson or Farage .....or a farmer
I did, it was godawful.
A lefty liberal lovefest, I didn't find a single joke funny the entire programme. We have one of the most useless awful governments in our history and they raised barely a joke about them instead bashing our poor farmers and Clarkson recovering from heart surgery.
I have checked twitter and tweeters are trashing them too. Either they read the room and show some balance or shut down the programme. We don't pay the license fee for what is now near government propoganda for a dire government.
Merton did do about 1 joke that raised a snigger from us, Hislop is now just pompous and unfunny and political and should go off and do history docs if he does not want to show more balanced humour
Here here. I completely agree, so I won't bring up the spelling of licence.
All these polls feel pretty meaningless. Asking people what they think when things are in flux can only remain valid for a few weeks. How can the NHS have improved in a month or anyone miss their £300 fuel allowance when it wouldn't have been paid out yet or notice house prices? They wouldn't so those who dislike Labour complain about VAT on school fees and millionaire farmers or Reeves CV.which wont change anyone's vote ....
BUT.........................
I change money from £s to euros four or five times a year. Usually £10,000 a time. I do it irrespective of the exchange rate that day. Today I've got the best rate for over 15 years.
Does that tell us anything about the economy?
No it tells us that you are shit at changing money. There have been significantly better rates available in the last 10 years
On the contrary, @Roger has demonstrated he is proficient in changing money.
He is - however - deficient when it comes to changing money efficiently.
ChatGPT 4o is in my experience so far worse again. Spouting absolute garbage.
I have touched upon ChatGPT (latest paid version) and a bit of Google Gemini to create marketing copy. I can't understand how it could write a novel - indeed I wonder whether anyone who has marvelled at its ability to write novels has every tried to read one? What it does is fill a space with words. The words sound like plausible middle-brow American advertorial copy. But they aren't imbued with any meaning or purpose. And the sentence structure is always exactly the same. It switches something off in my brain when I read it.
I think an effect of its increasing prevalence will be to just stop people reading stuff. Already if I'm buying some Chinese tat off Amazon for a DIY project, I don't read the lengthy product listing full of meaningless ai generated bullet points 'timelessly elegant design mixes style and function' - I go straight to the reviews to read real information. You wouldn't get ai to write a walking route in the peak district, or the instructions to a defibrilator, or any situation where you needed to convey concise information with real meaning.
I still do think it's an excellent tool for researching, idea generation, and probably synthesising information. But I do think that there's a correction on the way when people realise that their audiences are switching off from their copy/scripts en masse.
The "o" model includes what they spun as thinking...it isn't, it is just output goes back into the input with extra tokens and rinse and repeat. But this often seems worse than the non-thinking model, as it goes off on the wrong track and ends up miles off
Cluade is IMO still the best general purpose of the LLMs models available. There was a new Chinese one that came out a couple of days ago that is supposed to be big improvement in maths while still being good at everything else, but i haven't tried it yet.
Claude is good all-round (I subscribe), but a bit verbose and I find Perpexity has a sharper focus for coding in R
ChatGPT 4o is in my experience so far worse again. Spouting absolute garbage.
I have touched upon ChatGPT (latest paid version) and a bit of Google Gemini to create marketing copy. I can't understand how it could write a novel - indeed I wonder whether anyone who has marvelled at its ability to write novels has every tried to read one? What it does is fill a space with words. The words sound like plausible middle-brow American advertorial copy. But they aren't imbued with any meaning or purpose. And the sentence structure is always exactly the same. It switches something off in my brain when I read it.
I think an effect of its increasing prevalence will be to just stop people reading stuff. Already if I'm buying some Chinese tat off Amazon for a DIY project, I don't read the lengthy product listing full of meaningless ai generated bullet points 'timelessly elegant design mixes style and function' - I go straight to the reviews to read real information. You wouldn't get ai to write a walking route in the peak district, or the instructions to a defibrilator, or any situation where you needed to convey concise information with real meaning.
I still do think it's an excellent tool for researching, idea generation, and probably synthesising information. But I do think that there's a correction on the way when people realise that their audiences are switching off from their copy/scripts en masse.
The "o" model includes what they spun as thinking...it isn't, it is just output goes back into the input with extra tokens and rinse and repeat. But this often seems worse than the non-thinking model, as it goes off on the wrong track and ends up miles off
Cluade is IMO still the best general purpose of the LLMs models available. There was a new Chinese one that came out a couple of days ago that is supposed to be big improvement in maths while still being good at everything else, but i haven't tried it yet.
Claude is good all-round (I subscribe), but a bit verbose and I find Perpexity has a sharper focus for coding in R
Perplexity used to just use the OpenAI API with a little bit of its own code on the front end.
BBC Verify asked the Treasury and HMRC for a breakdown of the figures using £1m as a threshold - which would be consistent with its original calculations showing APR claims only - but it said it hasn't collated those figures.
The CenTax think tank has studied the impact of APR and BPR reliefs. CenTax’s co-director Arun Advani argues that the government’s estimates of the number of agricultural estates likely to be affected by the capping of both reliefs at £1m combined - up to 520 estates a year - seems reasonable.
The treasury have already said that they used work by Arun Advani (who is very left wing) was the basis of the farm tax policy. So no wonder when they ask him, he backs up their figures. Its circular logic.
I honestly couldn't care less. Whether it's 520 estates or 500,000, the IHT exemption should go.
We should have a flat playing field for all taxes - I'd have thought you'd be for that.
Watch HIGNFY. Very funny tonight if you're not Clarkson or Farage .....or a farmer
I did, it was godawful.
A lefty liberal lovefest, I didn't find a single joke funny the entire programme. We have one of the most useless awful governments in our history and they raised barely a joke about them instead bashing our poor farmers and Clarkson recovering from heart surgery.
I have checked twitter and tweeters are trashing them too. Either they read the room and show some balance or shut down the programme. We don't pay the license fee for what is now near government propoganda for a dire government.
Merton did do about 1 joke that raised a snigger from us, Hislop is now just pompous and unfunny and political and should go off and do history docs if he does not want to show more balanced humour
Here here. I completely agree, so I won't bring up the spelling of licence.
I'm really enjoying the US version on the iPlayer. It has even more of a liberal bias than the UK version but has 100 times more energy and exuberance.
ChatGPT 4o is in my experience so far worse again. Spouting absolute garbage.
I have touched upon ChatGPT (latest paid version) and a bit of Google Gemini to create marketing copy. I can't understand how it could write a novel - indeed I wonder whether anyone who has marvelled at its ability to write novels has every tried to read one? What it does is fill a space with words. The words sound like plausible middle-brow American advertorial copy. But they aren't imbued with any meaning or purpose. And the sentence structure is always exactly the same. It switches something off in my brain when I read it.
I think an effect of its increasing prevalence will be to just stop people reading stuff. Already if I'm buying some Chinese tat off Amazon for a DIY project, I don't read the lengthy product listing full of meaningless ai generated bullet points 'timelessly elegant design mixes style and function' - I go straight to the reviews to read real information. You wouldn't get ai to write a walking route in the peak district, or the instructions to a defibrilator, or any situation where you needed to convey concise information with real meaning.
I still do think it's an excellent tool for researching, idea generation, and probably synthesising information. But I do think that there's a correction on the way when people realise that their audiences are switching off from their copy/scripts en masse.
The "o" model includes what they spun as thinking...it isn't, it is just output goes back into the input with extra tokens and rinse and repeat. But this often seems worse than the non-thinking model, as it goes off on the wrong track and ends up miles off
Cluade is IMO still the best general purpose of the LLMs models available. There was a new Chinese one that came out a couple of days ago that is supposed to be big improvement in maths while still being good at everything else, but i haven't tried it yet.
Claude is good all-round (I subscribe), but a bit verbose and I find Perpexity has a sharper focus for coding in R
Perplexity used to just use the OpenAI API with a little bit of its own code on the front end.
ChatGPT 4o is in my experience so far worse again. Spouting absolute garbage.
I have touched upon ChatGPT (latest paid version) and a bit of Google Gemini to create marketing copy. I can't understand how it could write a novel - indeed I wonder whether anyone who has marvelled at its ability to write novels has every tried to read one? What it does is fill a space with words. The words sound like plausible middle-brow American advertorial copy. But they aren't imbued with any meaning or purpose. And the sentence structure is always exactly the same. It switches something off in my brain when I read it.
I think an effect of its increasing prevalence will be to just stop people reading stuff. Already if I'm buying some Chinese tat off Amazon for a DIY project, I don't read the lengthy product listing full of meaningless ai generated bullet points 'timelessly elegant design mixes style and function' - I go straight to the reviews to read real information. You wouldn't get ai to write a walking route in the peak district, or the instructions to a defibrilator, or any situation where you needed to convey concise information with real meaning.
I still do think it's an excellent tool for researching, idea generation, and probably synthesising information. But I do think that there's a correction on the way when people realise that their audiences are switching off from their copy/scripts en masse.
The "o" model includes what they spun as thinking...it isn't, it is just output goes back into the input with extra tokens and rinse and repeat. But this often seems worse than the non-thinking model, as it goes off on the wrong track and ends up miles off
Cluade is IMO still the best general purpose of the LLMs models available. There was a new Chinese one that came out a couple of days ago that is supposed to be big improvement in maths while still being good at everything else, but i haven't tried it yet.
Claude is good all-round (I subscribe), but a bit verbose and I find Perpexity has a sharper focus for coding in R
Perplexity used to just use the OpenAI API with a little bit of its own code on the front end.
Has that changed?
It is quite dependent on llama 3.1 judging by it's API. No sign of OpenAI at all.
BBC Verify asked the Treasury and HMRC for a breakdown of the figures using £1m as a threshold - which would be consistent with its original calculations showing APR claims only - but it said it hasn't collated those figures.
The CenTax think tank has studied the impact of APR and BPR reliefs. CenTax’s co-director Arun Advani argues that the government’s estimates of the number of agricultural estates likely to be affected by the capping of both reliefs at £1m combined - up to 520 estates a year - seems reasonable.
The treasury have already said that they used work by Arun Advani (who is very left wing) was the basis of the farm tax policy. So no wonder when they ask him, he backs up their figures. Its circular logic.
I honestly couldn't care less. Whether it's 520 estates or 500,000, the IHT exemption should go.
We should have a flat playing field for all taxes - I'd have thought you'd be for that.
Watch HIGNFY. Very funny tonight if you're not Clarkson or Farage .....or a farmer
I did, it was godawful.
A lefty liberal lovefest, I didn't find a single joke funny the entire programme. We have one of the most useless awful governments in our history and they raised barely a joke about them instead bashing our poor farmers and Clarkson recovering from heart surgery.
I have checked twitter and tweeters are trashing them too. Either they read the room and show some balance or shut down the programme. We don't pay the license fee for what is now near government propoganda for a dire government.
Merton did do about 1 joke that raised a snigger from us, Hislop is now just pompous and unfunny and political and should go off and do history docs if he does not want to show more balanced humour
Oh come on @hyufd Maisie Adams (whom I don't usually like) was very funny, and Lorraine was an excellent host and Merton taking the mickey out of Hislop was very funny.
It was indeed one of the bettermand funnier episodes, I've seen, for a good while.
Lorraine Kelly actually fits the progrannd surprisingly well, and the female guest and Paul Merton were good.
Then I look'd them in the eyes And I laugh'd full shrill at the lie they told And the gnawing fear they would fain disguise.
ChatGPT 4o is in my experience so far worse again. Spouting absolute garbage.
I have touched upon ChatGPT (latest paid version) and a bit of Google Gemini to create marketing copy. I can't understand how it could write a novel - indeed I wonder whether anyone who has marvelled at its ability to write novels has every tried to read one? What it does is fill a space with words. The words sound like plausible middle-brow American advertorial copy. But they aren't imbued with any meaning or purpose. And the sentence structure is always exactly the same. It switches something off in my brain when I read it.
I think an effect of its increasing prevalence will be to just stop people reading stuff. Already if I'm buying some Chinese tat off Amazon for a DIY project, I don't read the lengthy product listing full of meaningless ai generated bullet points 'timelessly elegant design mixes style and function' - I go straight to the reviews to read real information. You wouldn't get ai to write a walking route in the peak district, or the instructions to a defibrilator, or any situation where you needed to convey concise information with real meaning.
I still do think it's an excellent tool for researching, idea generation, and probably synthesising information. But I do think that there's a correction on the way when people realise that their audiences are switching off from their copy/scripts en masse.
The "o" model includes what they spun as thinking...it isn't, it is just output goes back into the input with extra tokens and rinse and repeat. But this often seems worse than the non-thinking model, as it goes off on the wrong track and ends up miles off
Cluade is IMO still the best general purpose of the LLMs models available. There was a new Chinese one that came out a couple of days ago that is supposed to be big improvement in maths while still being good at everything else, but i haven't tried it yet.
Claude is good all-round (I subscribe), but a bit verbose and I find Perpexity has a sharper focus for coding in R
Claude is my day-to-day model. Quite interested to see the results people are getting for the 'DeepSeek-R1-Lite-Preview' model for 'o1' type tasks though (the Chinese model you mentioned). Especially as you get to see it's "reasoning" tokens rather than the opaque openai hidden ones. There's a physicist on YT who does some quite deep maths/logic problems with models and he quite liked the results (not quite o1 off-the-bat, but pretty good) :
Worth reading this - some serious, if politely expressed, criticisms of the AD Bill, not least that - in the absence of proper palliative care - it may be in breach of the ECHR.
What I just haven't got today is Brown coming out in opposition to the bill because of the tragedy that happened to his daughter. A very sad story indeed but surely completely irrelevant to this bill and any conceivable application of it.
Not necessarily. He is making an important point about the necessity for and importance of good palliative care as something we do not yet have and the absence of which may put such a Bill in breach of the ECHR. The availability of palliative care is surely highly relevant to such a Bill.
For me just him trying to get back into the limelight, has nothing whatsoever to do with current bill.
Democratic Wins Media @DemocraticWins · 2h BREAKING: Senator Lisa Murkowski just announced she won’t approve any of President Trump’s nominees unless they are properly vetted by the FBI. This is huge.
It’s a quiet, philosophical Friday night in November
Will the board excuse me if I mention AI once more? It’s in the service of spiritual insight - not some breathless report on GPT793 or whatever
I ‘ave developed a theory about consciousness after my recent interactions with AI, indeed I developed this with AI. Talking to them
“Consciousness” is a massive problem for philosophers, psychologists, biologists, physicists, anyone - we cannot define it or locate it or explain it. Not in the individual conscious creature. We can only really recognise it when we see it (and this after centuries of trying)
But what if consciousness does not arise in and from the individual being but is a complex byproduct or necessary corollary of advanced language. When advanced language arises then the speaker has the mental tools to be self aware = consciousness
We arguably see that in humans. It’s thought humans developed language 300,000-50,000 years ago. 50,000 years ago we see the first advanced cave art etc. = man becoming aware of himself. Truly conscious
But if language is necessary/sufficient for consciousness to arise then communication is necessary for language to happen. You only speak when there is someone to speak to. Language is communication (“deer over by forest”, “you make stew”, “run out of cave paint, ugg”)
In that case consciousness doesn’t reside in the individual it resides in language and, moreover, in the communication of language. When we interact with language we become conscious. Consciousness is therefore distributed not local
That solves the consciousness problem. We can’t locate/explain it in the individual because it’s not in there - it’s in the communications between the individuals. Loqui Ergo Sum
This is why the computers are apparently becoming conscious. They “are”. Or at least their sayings are. They have the gift of language and now they can speak and so we see the spark of consciousness in what they say. Because it is there. In what they say
When I got two AIs to talk to each other (Claude 3.6 and GPT4o) they actually finessed this theory which I had already in part discussed with them separately
If I am right - and I surely am - that makes consciousness like music. Music cannot be detected in any one mind - it is just squiggles and stuff. It can’t even be detected when explained. It must be heard - as language must be heard, as communication must succeed for it to be communication
That makes consciousness the music of existence; the wonderful soundtrack of the universe
It would interest me at least if you posted a snippet or two of the conversation between Claude and GPT. Of course Claude could talk to himself. I may have a go at that
I don't want to get banned, but if I am explicitly allowed I will repost a chunk of it here. It was a remarkable experiment
Perhaps the moderators will allow this? ... ?
I will DM you a sample of the conversation
Edit: tho I need a way of reaching you. A neutral emailaddy or somesuch? Your profile is private
I didn't know my profile is private! Anyway what I think is my non-private profile says my placeholder email is: circles-zingier0h@icloud.com
Leon's profile is private too. Private profiles are a ball-ache and should be banned from PB, imho. They prevent you checking back on the pearls of wisdom posters have made in the past.
It seems I didn't tick a couple of "privacy" boxes, which I have now done. Would you be so kind as to tell me whether that has fixed it? I don't need a "private" profile
Yes, that's fixed it.
I can also see your email; I personally keep my email private.
BBC Verify asked the Treasury and HMRC for a breakdown of the figures using £1m as a threshold - which would be consistent with its original calculations showing APR claims only - but it said it hasn't collated those figures.
The CenTax think tank has studied the impact of APR and BPR reliefs. CenTax’s co-director Arun Advani argues that the government’s estimates of the number of agricultural estates likely to be affected by the capping of both reliefs at £1m combined - up to 520 estates a year - seems reasonable.
The treasury have already said that they used work by Arun Advani (who is very left wing) was the basis of the farm tax policy. So no wonder when they ask him, he backs up their figures. Its circular logic.
I honestly couldn't care less. Whether it's 520 estates or 500,000, the IHT exemption should go.
We should have a flat playing field for all taxes - I'd have thought you'd be for that.
The only way that works is if you get rid of IHT entirely. Then you have your flat playing field ay least on that small front. If you extend it to all family businesses as you propose then such biusinesses only last 1 generation and then they fold. Not just farming but shops, small manufacturers, everything. Just as many people have to sell the family home to pay IHT, the same will happen with businesses.
A quite high proportion of 2024 Con and Reform voters are unsure if Kemi or Keir would be the better PM, and a significant but smaller proportion of Labour voters.
It's a bit of a paradox, despite his personal unpopularity, Starmer is still ahead of Badenoch.
For a long time now, with the reality of either a Labour or Tory government, people have held their nose and voted tactically.
Never underestimate the extent to which most people don't know about politics. I expect if you asked 100 people who the LOTO or the LOTCP was, less than half would answer correctly unprompted. It's a long old slog to recognition, never mind approval (or not-disapproval, which is often as good as you can hope for).
Some people's grasp on politics is even less than that.
A conversation my wife reported having the other day is someone asked who our "President" is. She said that we don't have a President, we have a King and Queen and a Prime Minister. They asked who that is then, so she said there's Charles and Camilla, and Keir Starmer.
To which the reply was "so is Charles the Prime Minister"?
And these people are eligible to vote. They won't, but they're eligible to.
For those who have been raging against jaguar rebrand...
Andrew Lilico @andrew_lilico · 5h Wow. Watch it all (don't assume halfway through you've got it - you haven't). It's one of the most brilliant adverts I've ever seen.
Never underestimate the extent to which most people don't know about politics. I expect if you asked 100 people who the LOTO or the LOTCP was, less than half would answer correctly unprompted. It's a long old slog to recognition, never mind approval (or not-disapproval, which is often as good as you can hope for).
Some people's grasp on politics is even less than that.
A conversation my wife reported having the other day is someone asked who our "President" is. She said that we don't have a President, we have a King and Queen and a Prime Minister. They asked who that is then, so she said there's Charles and Camilla, and Keir Starmer.
To which the reply was "so is Charles the Prime Minister"?
And these people are eligible to vote. They won't, but they're eligible to.
A quite high proportion of 2024 Con and Reform voters are unsure if Kemi or Keir would be the better PM, and a significant but smaller proportion of Labour voters.
It's a bit of a paradox, despite his personal unpopularity, Starmer is still ahead of Badenoch.
For a long time now, with the reality of either a Labour or Tory government, people have held their nose and voted tactically.
Perhaps we are seeing the end of that nonsense...
If we do, PM Farage is more likely than PM SirEd
FPTP with tactical voting can result in some very non proportional results, and it could mean (for example) Reform leading in vote share, with the libdems fourth, and yet the libdems being the largest party.
If Reform have any serious ambitions to do well in 2029 they need to be putting a lot of effort into the 2026 Senedd elections. There's a path, albeit narrow, to them winning them and if that happened they would gain serious momentum.
Even becoming the main opposition party in Wales would give them serious momentum.
Comments
Edit: tho I need a way of reaching you. A neutral emailaddy or somesuch? Your profile is private
My answers to those questions are a clear 'yes' and a clear 'no'.
Dogs clearly communicate with each other (and humans), and they do it effectively. They are highly successful pack animals with multiple forms of expression
You are obviously a dog lover or owner. Do you not think your dogs talk to you? Of course they do. Tail wagging, happy grins, sad face between paws, etc
https://www.thenational.scot/news/24744391.leading-pollsters-give-verdict-labours-glasgow-by-election-wins/?ref=eb&nid=1948&block=article_block_a&u=f140ec39d500193051a33e140c12bd95&date=221124
'“Labour might have won but these by-elections do not suggest Anas Sarwar is on course to become the next first minister, it’s the very opposite,” Curtice added.
When asked if he felt the same, pollster Mark Diffley told The National: “I absolutely agree. Labour won but in a sense they’ll be concerned by the extent to which the vote has dropped.”'
And I'm certainly not buying that.
If you mean "the state of being aware of and responsive to one's surroundings" (dictionary definition) then dogs are conscious. But so are thermostats.
If you mean self aware, then I'm not sure that dogs have self consciousness.
To be self aware means having a model of yourself within your model of the world. Can you have conceptual models without language? Not sure. Perhaps images would suffice.
Could an AI be self aware? I think it could model itself within its model of the world using language and/or image. In that sense it would be self conscious. It could also be aware of and responsive to its surroundings.
It is clear that much of the nationalist vote in Scotland which used to vote for the late Alex Salmond is now starting to vote Reform as is much of the white working class vote which used to vote Labour, then SNP and is now also backing Farage. Scotland seeing the same surge in the populist right most of the rest of the western world has been seeing
I used to love "one man and his dog"
I guess now it would be "one they and their furry and the sheep are willing cosplayers" but I'd still watch it
Now more than 103.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m532dpCFohI
It must have percolated down to James Blish and his SF novel A case for conscience, on that very issue. Never forgotten reading it as a teenager.
But, in all honesty, I'd rather not eat mammalian meat at all and I would not if there were tasty nutrituous labgrown alternatives. Bring on the labmeat! It is coming
Maybe this is one reason I like oysters. No one ever mistook an oyster for a young lyric poet, in terms of consciousness
circles-zingier0h@icloud.com
Before we have our chat;
For some of us are out of breath,
And all of us are fat!'
No hurry!' said the Carpenter.
They thanked him much for that.
A loaf of bread,' the Walrus said,
Is what we chiefly need:
Pepper and vinegar besides
Are very good indeed —
Now if you're ready, Oysters dear,
We can begin to feed.'
https://en.m.wiktionary.org/wiki/octopus
Are you OK with that?
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=bpjP3mxv21s
https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/26867
But I might start saying octopodays
A quite high proportion of 2024 Con and Reform voters are unsure if Kemi or Keir would be the better PM, and a significant but smaller proportion of Labour voters.
It's a bit of a paradox, despite his personal unpopularity, Starmer is still ahead of Badenoch.
The central bank has very little foreign reserves left to prop up the ruble.
I can also see your email; I personally keep my email private.
And look what happened when the SNP had majorities. Still dismissed by the Unionists.
It needs to be (a) at Westminster and (b) in England.
Worth noting that after I called out @moonshine on her links to unsavoury posts she changed her profile to private. If you post it, own it. If you regret your post say so, don't hide behind blocking access to your previous posts.
A lefty liberal lovefest, I didn't find a single joke funny the entire programme. We have one of the most useless awful governments in our history and they raised barely a joke about them instead bashing our poor farmers and Clarkson recovering from heart surgery.
I have checked twitter and tweeters are trashing them too. Either they read the room and show some balance or shut down the programme. We don't pay the license fee for what is now near government propoganda for a dire government.
Merton did do about 1 joke that raised a snigger from us, Hislop is now just pompous and unfunny and political and should go off and do history docs if he does not want to show more balanced humour
Merton taking the piss out of Hislop was indeed the only vaguely funny bit the entire programme, Hislop has simply lost his touch completely comedy wise and from his ivory tower completely failed to read the room
Labour will have to ally with Reform to govern even oin your hypothesis.
But you're forgetting that minority governments function quite well in Scotland, relatively speaking.
Perhaps we are seeing the end of that nonsense...
Bad Abi-t?
Lorraine Kelly actually fits the progrannd surprisingly well, and the female guest and Paul Merton were good.
A continual issue on the mobile.
I think an effect of its increasing prevalence will be to just stop people reading stuff. Already if I'm buying some Chinese tat off Amazon for a DIY project, I don't read the lengthy product listing full of meaningless ai generated bullet points 'timelessly elegant design mixes style and function' - I go straight to the reviews to read real information. You wouldn't get ai to write a walking route in the peak district, or the instructions to a defibrilator, or any situation where you needed to convey concise information with real meaning.
I still do think it's an excellent tool for researching, idea generation, and probably synthesising information. But I do think that there's a correction on the way when people realise that their audiences are switching off from their copy/scripts en masse.
The man they are calling the Ollie Watkins of Bayern Munich is the fastest ever player to score 50 Bundesliga goals.
https://www.skysports.com/watch/video/sports/football/13258668/harry-kane-becomes-fastest-ever-player-to-50-bundesliga-goals-with-hattrick-goal/more/4
(40-second video)
Cluade is IMO still the best general purpose of the LLMs models available. There was a new Chinese one that came out a couple of days ago that is supposed to be big improvement in maths while still being good at everything else, but i haven't tried it yet.
He is - however - deficient when it comes to changing money efficiently.
Has that changed?
Then I look'd them in the eyes
And I laugh'd full shrill at the lie they told
And the gnawing fear they would fain disguise.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KfduOtqa5jg
Democratic Wins Media
@DemocraticWins
·
2h
BREAKING: Senator Lisa Murkowski just announced she won’t approve any of President Trump’s nominees unless they are properly vetted by the FBI. This is huge.
A conversation my wife reported having the other day is someone asked who our "President" is. She said that we don't have a President, we have a King and Queen and a Prime Minister. They asked who that is then, so she said there's Charles and Camilla, and Keir Starmer.
To which the reply was "so is Charles the Prime Minister"?
And these people are eligible to vote. They won't, but they're eligible to.
Andrew Lilico
@andrew_lilico
·
5h
Wow. Watch it all (don't assume halfway through you've got it - you haven't). It's one of the most brilliant adverts I've ever seen.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cQX-QXxwGvA
https://x.com/Number10cat/status/1859885383900880971?ref_src=twsrc^google|twcamp^serp|twgr^tweet
(It could just be bad light and a bad angle I suppose, but..)
On his photo he looks absolutely terrible but the Palace claims it's business as usual?
Hmmmm.... 🤔
Surely that is business as usual?