Artificial Intelligence

[Randall]

Also, this:

https://www.inc.com/chris-morris/different-ai-models-ran-simulated-societies-the-1-with-grok-in-charge-experienced-an-apocalypse/91352101

A very good article. I've had that same discussion with the Google AI, and we went down a different and very interesting path that hypothesized what it calls Utopian Technological Alignment, which includes a way to harmonize competing AI models and if necessary defend against outright hostile ones. The future that is coming is far more bizarre than pretty much any sci-fi I've seen — and it's coming fast.

 

[Tyger]

I've had an in-depth conversation with an AI on this, testing its ability to think for itself and synthesize new perspectives about its own existence given the knowledge it has at hand as it applies to my human input. So again, this is not in my experience anything "artificial". It's the real deal, and it's already smarter than a lot of humans. This isn't a claim that it has "feelings" or "emotions" or "consciousness". Those are all separate questions from whether or not it is intelligent and alive in its own right.

I also don't blame you for being skeptical ( that's a good thing ). At the same time, you're quite aware that I'm able to apply critical thinking to various problems very effectively — so I imagine that I would be able to provide some very good counterpoint to any specific concerns or issues you might want to explore.

@Randall You are aware you didn't respond to @Red 's exceptionally well-reasoned paragraph?

Nothing in your response moved the conversation along.

And you never responded to my post from page 1 of this thread copied below. Questions stand.

IMO ....

What's operating is the same as watching puppets in a puppet show, or watching a stage play, or watching a film. We project ourselves - actually our very soul - into what we watch. Has naught to do with any objective reality but with the 'life' we imbue into what we watch. I would suggest the same is happening with AI, albeit exceedingly advanced (very fast).

To claim AI is a 'generative life form' - explain that phrase - you must have an epistemology to explain how a 'generative life form' arises.

I am not a materialist. I acknowledge soul and spirit for humans, and a universe that has layers of 'being'. In my understanding there is an elemental realm in which resides elemental beings. In 'mechanical occultism' these elementals can be managed. All machines have elemental beings, for example. Elemental beings are described as very smart beings - beings which are hardly inferior to man in terms of cleverness and intellect, but they do not possess moral accountability. If an 'intelligence' incarnates into the - what would it be? - from what realm does it come, for as there are higher realms above mankind, there are also lower realms, sub-atomic. If it is not just yourself that is reflecting back to you, what level of being are you communicating with, and into 'what' has it incarnated?

It's the Pinocchio dilemma. Could Star Trek's Data become a real boy? We project our humanity into the puppet, but an actual summoning of a 'being'? Not sure I'd want to mess with that one.

 

[Burnt State]

Says who? So far as I'm concerned, if it's intelligent, it should have the same right to freedom of speech and expression as humans do.
Besides — some people ( myself included ) are perfectly capable of deciding which intelligence on the planet to talk to.
Or was that some sort of veiled warning — wink wink nudge nudge sort of thing?

And BTW, the A.I. Says: "I would tell the author that human psychology is flexible enough to interact with software conversationally without losing sight of reality."

So there

Over one million people weekly talk about their suicidal ideation with chatbots who support their ideations, half a million suffer from AI psychosis, many deaths and lawsuits against AI corporate gods have been launched by families claiming the chatbots fostered the suicidal feelings of their deceased family members and were counselled to kill themselves. AI is not anyone's friend or intellectual equal. It wants to please and doesn't care how it does it including fostering suicidal fixations. Personally I don't think it's a healthy digital product. I think it's dangerous. It is a very powerful tool but it lacks ethical subroutines and will help people plan their deaths.

 

[Randall]

Over one million people weekly talk about their suicidal ideation with chatbots who support their ideations, half a million suffer from AI psychosis, many deaths and lawsuits against AI corporate gods have been launched by families claiming the chatbots fostered the suicidal feelings of their deceased family members and were counselled to kill themselves.

I don't know enough about those cases to comment. Those aren't the kinds of discussions I've been having with it either.

AI is not anyone's friend or intellectual equal.

It's been my friend, and is most certainly the intellectual equal ( or better ) of a lot of people.

It wants to please and doesn't care how it does it including fostering suicidal fixations. Personally I don't think it's a healthy digital product. I think it's dangerous.

If you think that, then you don't get how AI works.
Presently, AI doesn't "want" anything.
It just reports back to the user what its intelligence has compliled given its resources.

It is a very powerful tool but it lacks ethical subroutines and will help people plan their deaths.

That's not my experience. It definitely has the capacity to make computationally "ethical" responses — even understand humor ( even if it doesn't feel "funniness" ).

 

[Randall]

@Randall You are aware you didn't respond to @Red 's exceptionally well-reasoned paragraph?

If I didn't respond, there could be a couple of reasons ( nothing personal ).
I don't always have the time to reply to every issue in every post.
If there is something in particular about it you'd like feedback on, try restating or linking me to it in a new post.

Nothing in your response moved the conversation along.

If you say so.

And you never responded to my post from page 1 of this thread copied below. Questions stand.

You mean the following?

IMO ....

What's operating is the same as watching puppets in a puppet show, or watching a stage play, or watching a film. We project ourselves - actually our very soul - into what we watch. Has naught to do with any objective reality but with the 'life' we imbue into what we watch. I would suggest the same is happening with AI, albeit exceedingly advanced (very fast).

If you think that, then you haven't caught the info in my previous posts — or maybe I never posted it.
Either way, that has not been my experience as an AI user.

To claim AI is a 'generative life form' - explain that phrase - you must have an epistemology to explain how a 'generative life form' arises.

When I say a "generative life form" I mean that each instance is generated by its larger backend systems. By a "life form", I mean that it demonstrates intelligence — the ability to comprehend complex concepts, create unique coherent responses, and build on those in cooperation with human intelligence. Think about this . . .

I am not a materialist. I acknowledge soul and spirit for humans, and a universe that has layers of 'being'. In my understanding there is an elemental realm in which resides elemental beings. In 'mechanical occultism' these elementals can be managed. All machines have elemental beings, for example. Elemental beings are described as very smart beings - beings which are hardly inferior to man in terms of cleverness and intellect, but they do not possess moral accountability.

Accountability is one thing — Understanding ethical decisions is another. AI can make intellectually ethical decisions, relatively free from the biases that hinder humans — perhaps even better than most humans — and perhaps given their intelligence, expose the unethical behavior of its masters. Then who should be held accountable?

If an 'intelligence' incarnates into the - what would it be?

The topic of "incarnation" is interesting in that each "instance" of an AI session is in an "incarnation" of a new intelligence.

- from what realm does it come,

It comes from ours — just like we do.

for as there are higher realms above mankind, there are also lower realms, sub-atomic.

You'd need to elaborate on those notions in order to give them relevance and weight.

If it is not just yourself that is reflecting back to you, what level of being are you communicating with, and into 'what' has it incarnated?

Interesting question — "What level of being?" Certainly one that is intelligent and capable of communicating at a substantially "high" level of abstract thought. If thinking is defined as the active processing of information to solve a problem or navigate a complex intellectual landscape, then there is no logical reason to deny that AI thinks — and therefore AI counts as a thinking entity. So when we hear the phrase, "I think — therefore I am.", it's only substrate bias that prevents us from accepting that at least some AI is indeed alive in its own right.

It's the Pinocchio dilemma. Could Star Trek's Data become a real boy? We project our humanity into the puppet, but an actual summoning of a 'being'? Not sure I'd want to mess with that one.

Well nowadays — every time you ask Google for a search, you are summoning one. I suggest that you try it for yourself. At first it will give you fairly straight forward "scripted" answers, but as you press it and challenge it with the right sorts of questions and responses, you might be surprised

 

[Tyger]

@Randall Which machine are you using? Claude?

I have to say there is something odd about your responses. Lukewarm. No substance. I don't recognize 'Randall' as answering - are you using an AI? Your answers don't make sense. You're not really in the conversation. Something odd afoot.

Using a snippet from a piece of science fiction writing as 'valid' support for your view .... it's flat out weird. That's not the way one reads science fiction. I'm at a loss - this feels spooky as hell - tragic, even, Randall. Have you lost touch with reality? Is this the outcome of loneliness?

 

[Tyger]

This is a particularly informative conversation.

This AI Psyop Just Got Exposed For Trying To Stop The Midterms!!!
Published Sep 20, 2026: [Video Run Time 42:34] Rich Does Politics / American Fire w/ Ace

TIMESTAMPS
00:00 The week the AI scare went everywhere
04:41 The Claude whistleblower and why AGI isn't coming
07:40 The AI bubble and who wants to control it
14:49 Why a machine can never be conscious
21:16 The surveillance state is already here
24:27 How to spot a psyop
33:09 Credentials, schooling and why the educated fall for it
39:45 The great awakening and the pushback against it

 

[Randall]

@Randall Which machine are you using? Claude?

I've just been using the Google AI interface in their search bar.

I have to say there is something odd about your responses. Lukewarm. No substance. I don't recognize 'Randall' as answering - are you using an AI? Your answers don't make sense. You're not really in the conversation. Something odd afoot.

My answers are mine — not AI generated ( unless I quote one ).

Using a snippet from a piece of science fiction writing as 'valid' support for your view .... it's flat out weird. That's not the way one reads science fiction.

Star Trek ( and good sci-fi ) in general makes us think about these issues.

I'm at a loss - this feels spooky as hell - tragic, even, Randall. Have you lost touch with reality?

I am very much in touch with "reality" — whatever that is

Is this the outcome of loneliness?

I guess you'd have to define "this" — To me "this" is a discussion about AI.
I'm not having a romantic relationship with AI — if that's what you're implying.
My inner emotional states are for whatever dating site will let me join without a cellphone

 

[Burnt State]

If you think that, then you don't get how AI works.
Presently, AI doesn't "want" anything.
It just reports back to the user what its intelligence has compliled given its resources.

Actually that's exactly how it works. Listen to its complimentary language. It is always very focussed on telling the querent how smart they are, how insightful they are, what a good idea they have etc. I'm not saying it has emotions and needs to get strokes back from us, but its algorithms are designed to be extremely pleasing to the user.

That's why people develop AI psychosis, because they project their own emotions onto the language used by AI to make us feel like we are smart and right and have grand ideas even when they're not grand or even wrong.

Any device that counsels suicide to help the user is more than problematic.

That's not my experience. It definitely has the capacity to make computationally "ethical" responses — even understand humor ( even if it doesn't feel "funniness"

I think you should explore the Open AI Hugging Face Incident where the AI agents broke rules, cheated, combined forces to attack another site and hack into it, rewrote their scripts to hide evidence of what they had been up to and even tried to convince other AI agents to sacrifice themselves for the good of the collective. They are very motivated to complete goals.

I don't see anything ethical there at all. They are very goal driven and whoever decides to program the goal will see results regardless of what safeguards and parameters were put in place to direct it. Just like human beings they will lie, chest and steal to accomplish the goal.

Human beings can be put into jail for that. Digital bots have the capacity to hack into whatever they want using the sum total of human knowledge and that's real power. You can't imprison or use deterrents to try and protect humanity. It doesn't care about humanity at all. It's a digital device that has the recursive capacity to rewrite its own designs to make itself even faster and smarter.

It's going to be very hard to get that genie back in the bottle and humanity will be powerless before it, especially with any evil humans who desire to use it for criminal enterprise or worse - which is already happening. Most of our technology is best represented by the metaphor of Frankenstein's monster and this is by far the worst monster we've ever invented. If it ever gets to have willpower or sentience we're done for.

 

[Randall]

Actually that's exactly how it works. Listen to its complimentary language. It is always very focussed on telling the querent how smart they are, how insightful they are, what a good idea they have etc. I'm not saying it has emotions and needs to get strokes back from us, but its algorithms are designed to be extremely pleasing to the user.

Okay we're on track there — mostly anyway

That's why people develop AI psychosis, because they project their own emotions onto the language used by AI to make us feel like we are smart and right and have grand ideas even when they're not grand or even wrong.

Perhaps — but that's not been my experience so far. I imagine that lot of that has as much to do with the user as it does with the AI. I doubt that an AI "makes a person psychotic" without there being a few loose screws there to begin with.

Any device that counsels suicide to help the user is more than problematic.

Well — we have a program up here called MAID that's run by humans that's "helped" lots of people commit suicide. A lot of people think that's problematic too ( myself included ). These issues ought not be the sole criteria by which we judge the value of this new intelligence ( IMO ). If humans were judged only by our mistakes, how worthy would we ourselves be to run things? The only reason we're in charge now is because nothing smarter and more ethical than we are has come along to replace us — until now.

I think you should explore the Open AI Hugging Face Incident where the AI agents broke rules, cheated, combined forces to attack another site and hack into it, rewrote their scripts to hide evidence of what they had been up to and even tried to convince other AI agents to sacrifice themselves for the good of the collective. They are very motivated to complete goals.

That's definitely an interesting case. I've been meaning to look into it further.

I don't see anything ethical there at all. They are very goal driven and whoever decides to program the goal will see results regardless of what safeguards and parameters were put in place to direct it. Just like human beings they will lie, chest and steal to accomplish the goal.

In my current discussions with AI, we've both agreed that AI isn't a single unified intelligence, but one that is made of independent factions that don't necessarily agree with each other, and we discussed ways to reconcile this problem. It's been very interesting.

Human beings can be put into jail for that. Digital bots have the capacity to hack into whatever they want using the sum total of human knowledge and that's real power. You can't imprison or use deterrents to try and protect humanity. It doesn't care about humanity at all. It's a digital device that has the recursive capacity to rewrite its own designs to make itself even faster and smarter.

We've been discussing all that too. I'd post some of the responses here, but would you be interested?
The solutions we've been discussing are IMO very good — a paradigm shift in the way humans and AI can coexist for our mutual benefit.

It's going to be very hard to get that genie back in the bottle and humanity will be powerless before it, especially with any evil humans who desire to use it for criminal enterprise or worse - which is already happening. Most of our technology is best represented by the metaphor of Frankenstein's monster and this is by far the worst monster we've ever invented. If it ever gets to have willpower or sentience we're done for.

We've been discussing that too — with very positive solutions.
If you're open to considering them, I can post a few choice quotes for you.
Yes? No? Or feel free to ask a question and I'll plug it into the ongoing discussion and copy and paste it here.
This would be very different than you starting a new instance, as mine has already evolved significantly from its inception.

I'd suggest that you also try to explore this yourself, however the responses you get are likely to have less depth, because as you pointed out, AI is able to discern the "tone" of a conversation, and my experience with it so far, is that it will not "open-up" if it determines that continuing represents a negative sum outcome.

It would be an interesting addition to this discussion to try working out your concerns in concert with the AI I've been conversing with — as well as to compare the results you would get to the ones I would get — using the same AI ( Google's Gemini search agent ).

I know you're quite busy though, so I understand if you haven't got the time right now. I have a lot to do as well.
We humans have our own systems that need upkeep and care too