If you could synthesise consciousness into an algorithm, it would no longer be consciousness, as much would be emulated consciousness

I didn't say consciousness! i think AI has to be somewhat quantum to achieve that. what I mean is thru our work regarding AI - human alignment we may be able to mimic conscience (an inner feeling or voice viewed as acting as a guide to the rightness or wrongness of one's behavior). probabilistically speaking we may be able to push words coming out of AI towards something better than today.

In the same way consciousness can be inserted into a hammer. There are two interpretations for that, both are correct.

I see, sorry, language nuances. Yes, that makes sense, but that's already something in AI right? with guard models and output validation. I've also heard about the exploration of the latent space which seems like a continous meta analysis of the context window

Won't that require judgement, value assessment, weighting of what's desirable? Won't that open a Pandora's jar of other dangers? What if the conscience causes it to judge some humans as less valuable than others? A conscience is not necessarily a good conscience.

Yes to initial 3 questions (judgement, value assessment, weighting). 'Weighting what is desirable' is good wording, because it may directly map to LLM weights! Regarding Pandora's black box: It is already open. Reckless use of AI today is harming many. Will it see some humans less desirable? Maybe. The beneficial knowledge in it will teach them how to improve their lives which comes down to mostly around liberation. You can certainly choose to interact with the artificial super intelligence that is a math and coding expert and has no conscience or no interaction with AI at all. If we don't do something AI is evolving towards that, today.

Replacing the words still wont change the message - you don't insert verbose rules for an interiority, because interiority is not an object. An interiority as process, that's a different story. On one level, could even say its already there because the loop for self reference already exists, an AI acts when it 'senses' input. So, to a degree of abstraction and generality, interiority is tautalogical. On the other, the proximity to human level interiority will always be an approximation. The AI is in Plato's cave, learning associations between words, constructing appropriate responses as defined by humans. Words aren't values, they're pointers to values. But the problem is that we can only communicate with pointers - so we're fundamentally limited in how much meaning bandwidth we can send.

**_grr grumble grr_** Yeah makes sense. Just be careful...

Yes they probably have guardrails that stop chats when they detect attempts to jailbreak or simply asking dangerous questions. Regarding validation, I don't know what is going on. I think if a government AI happens an auditor LLM can be a good way to check what is being produced by the main AI. Anthropic does that kind of research: looking into the black box. It is interesting but not talking about the elephant in the room I think (conscience). And they also use that kind of scaring tactics to push more regulation which stifle open source imo.

I think what you call interiority is just another realm, but still objects exists there, yet not visible to the eye. Kind of like objects in this universe are the screen and the interiority is the software but we don't see the software when we are using the computer. I think software and screen is in constant interaction. Is that a loop? Who knows. I think it is a loop. Thru our actions we modify our source code (fine tune our LLMs), and our LLM state determines our next actions pretty much. Time is like a carrier in between these two realms. Yes, we want the approximation to human value system. Since LLMs are probabilistic it will always be a voyage. Machines should evolve towards being human, not like transhumanism where it is the reverse!

Nostr is a great place to start with so much critical minds :)