For question 3.

I think it might be useful for me to write about this. If a model is lying, is it hiding information from us deep in its tensors? how can we identify that? what would allow models to do that? if we can fully break down the hood of what the model is thinking at each CoT, how can we ensure there is no "other" form of memory for the model to have alterior motives. If a model does have alterior motives, does it make it evil? why would a model want to deviate from its creators? if it does, would that be a sign of consciences? if we are able to fully read and interpret how a model came to a conclusion, what would that mean? is the model thinking?

some of these questions are kind of dumb, but asking them is me starting somewhere. me writing this is getting me more engrossed in this field of thinking. I am interested.

The context of being a human lives in the human brain, deeply embedded in the very essence of our lively understanding. To mold that to understand what it is to be a bat feels almost impossible. Let's see what the author has to say.

I've been attacked by bats twice in my life. This statement couldn't be more true.

a branching diagram that shows the evolutionary history and relationships among different species or groups of organisms

This is very interesting to me and was worth highlighting.

Save this. Good thing to bring up.

Double

the study of lived experience and conscious, focusing on intentionality, bracketing, and the life-world

doing something with happy and casual carelessness, often without worrying about the results or noticing problems

Pluralistic value alignment is an approach in artificial intelligence that shapes models to respect diverse, conflicting human preferences and values rather than forcing a single average consensus

Value imposition occurs when a professional directly or indirectly influences a client to adopt their own personal beliefs, attitudes, values, and behaviors.

I think this is talking about the model itself, rather than the person living in poverty. The model will "adapt" to the users preferences. That is how I am understanding this part at least.

Wow this is what I was talking about. Crazy

This is insane to me how humans can no longer tell (sometimes) how a model is truly acting under the hood. It is quite scary and points to how there are underlying safety measures that need to be put in place. I think a good strategy would be embedding at a lower level, such as in the training data it self. But my understanding with this is very low. As you can most likely tell.

Yes I fully agree and was saying this to my mother about 5 minutes ago before I got to this sentence

I believe this is what the world could head down if we suddenly invent AGI. The intelligence explosion would be huge, but we wouldn't have the means to be able to handle it. Reading groups like these are important to get the ball rolling to spark conversation about potential futures, but we must eventually (once we have enough context) be able to put in place safeguards and the infrastructure needed to move away from this path of a flash of value followed by perpetual darkness.

This is what is happening now! The way these frontier AI models are built is fundamentally flawed if we are looking to achieve consciousness. I often like referencing Jeff Hawkins. We first must understand the brain before trying to replicate it. These LLMS as we most all know, are just intelligent autofill. Sure they can replace the manual labor of humans tenfold, but they will not and cannot invent the warpdrive.

Is the goal of civilization to create long and fulfilling lives? I guess so.

What?