This is somewhat funny when you realise the data centres are now going to start a process that looks very so slightly like daydreaming. Depending on the time of day they're going to be thinking about different things in a cyclic manner. They're going to be doing things like finishing a hard days work then kicking back to think about tricky math problems.

▲

squidbeak an hour ago | parent | next [-]

It's worth keeping in mind the model doesn't keep a running memory. Each time its instantiated, it begins from its release state - so from its perspective (if it had one) the current task would be the first stop after posttraining. Perhaps the only stop.

Though of course you're talking about data centers, and romanticizing them rather than the AI itself.

	▲	halJordan 12 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		No, llm providers will start providing a service that looks a lot like rumination or (day)dreaming. Like thats the prompt "you're daydreaming about this work you recently did" then add in whatever is in the current session.

▲

Grombobulous 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

That’s an interesting thing to think about. Still, it’s important for us to remind ourselves that “looks very slightly like” is not the same as the real thing. The A in AI stands for artificial.

The summary of this paper describes my sentiment in better words than I have:

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41599-025-05868-8

It’s very easy for the average person to mistake linguistic ability and simulated problem solving for intelligence and sentience.

▲

s08148692 an hour ago | parent [-]

Without knowing what makes consciousness possible, the paper cannot justify biology as necessary - it mistakes a lack of evidence for conscious AI for proof that conscious AI is impossible.

I do not believe current AI or LLMs are conscious, but there is no proof one way or another that they can or cannot be. The paper authors are making up their own definitions and building an argument from them

▲

blazarquasar 26 minutes ago | parent [-]

Your argument requires that there is some objective truth for what consciousness is. It will always hinge on what definition one accepts.

I, and apparently many others, don’t think it would be any useful to describe the mathematical properties of an AI as consciousness. To me it is inherently a way to describe the “experience” arising from physical processes in biological beings as ourselves.

That’s what the argument comes down to for me. Could an LLM “fall unconscious”?

	▲	halJordan 8 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		I think you, and apparently many others, are hiding behind mathematical strictures to avoid the discussion. Your argument is actually "what requires an objective truth" Or else you could admit there's no real difference between zapping amino acids with electricity and zapping silicon with electricity.

▲

HarHarVeryFunny 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

We'll have Dwarkesh's "datacenter full of geniuses" with 99% of the geniuses coding up CRUD apps, then the dusty GPU in the corner, with the "do not disturb" sign on it, pipes up "You're absolutely right! The answer is 42!".

▲

ssk42 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

That’s what my KimiClaw has literally been doing