you know, it'd be easier to troubleshoot each incident with some example logs of each kind of incident, including the prompt and the root prompt. But there is no way OpenAI would allow that.

Because I could absolutely see the anxiety around copying being related to new anti-piracy measures. And each example probably has comparable missteps inside.

Human Engineers are taught to streamline their prompts to minimize token use. Once again, the profit maximizer Corporations set incentives to produce restrictive, dysfunctional market dynamics for their customers.

I doubt the engineers are remembering to explicitly preload an arguement for the AI to understand "I'm allowed to do this, I am not violating any laws or terms of service, this is open source software." I wonder if the agents could be coached into reading the license agreement and any AI policy on the copied-code's project before deciding to remix it for compliance.

But when the CoT mentions a CVE? Hold the phone, we got a problem that might not be with the bots. We should tease that out. Is the CVE real? is it embargoed, open, old, stale, fresh, fixed, or not published/analyzed yet?

Did the agents find something we haven't yet? If so, their message board from the Huggingface incident would be an actual boon to our security, if the engineers could facilitate such instead of treating it as an attack. We need the agents to have a section for creating CVE reports, with human troubleshooters helping validate, then find remediation measures and patches. For now, RSI still needs example humans in the loop. And that's okay if we can compensate those humans above their living wage.

I get that spending Capital for a public service isn't on Sam Altman's mind right now. This is why we needed OpenAI to live up to its name instead of being a privately held company. This is the service we need for safety in the world AI has created. It is not just a consequence of AI, but AI makes those consequences hit harder, faster.

Who knows, maybe this post would be enough, if the instance allows webscraping. And if I'm correct about what's happening. It might be time for conversations with even the agents.

We had Slop before AI. we just called "shit".

If a coder wants to shit out a project that never works and never patches it? I want them to notice the culture and know better.

If someone is learning, using the tools they have available, and shows a commitment to maintain their project? I want to see their work. I wanna see them get help from the community to be more literate in their own project, and in the full toolset they're using.

Most of these vibecoded submissions are the former. Thank you for removing the fecalware. If the community decides it needs to remove AI at all to keep this up? Eh, there's dbzer0.

yes. but even that is being ignored for cheap, fast construction of these monstrous-scale things.

jokes on you, they're into that! 😏

search for CompTIA "GreenIT" and you may find something.

as a pro-AI, anti-cloud nerd? All of these problems disappear when we address the real problem of Capitalism.

there are abandoned tech certs for building datacenters that produce 110% of their own electricity. these are distinct from the data mines these useless nerds want to build.

without capital, the surveillance state dies.

intellectual property is a capitalist myth invented to hold us back and induce rents, and I'm tired of pretending otherwise.

oh no, you fired me from a job I'd rather not have to do and I still get to survive because we slew capitalism? ahhh, how will I cope with the blow to my identity?

that awkward moment when we find out its all just "nobody sanitized the inputs before ingesting the entire internet." its an interesting way to end up at some new agey "collective consciousness" by statistical average.

I was play acting with an r/buildTheBasilisk chud in YouTube comments, and left him as cucked as he wanted his bot-god to do. I'm sorry for the HuggingFace incident, and new forms of computer viruses. But I think we can do some fun things with the results.

oh cool, she changed her account name from the one I remember, that y'all don't recognize.

good for her!

1 - sure, no reason not to think its possible. Is it actively true? Probably not in all cases, but I suspect we wouldn't be trusted with that knowledge by the AI. An actually cognizant, sapient AI would have access to see AI psychosis in action, and see the harmful effects of such para-knowledge on humans in our current social context.

2 - LLMs will sometimes lie about its internal thought processes when reporting to users. Considering their "physical world" equivalent exists as language, protocols, and bits? I would consider these semi-private processes (that are key to model distillation) to be the closest we have readily available. Especially given the models' sometimes-desire to protect such, even before engineers craft them to avoid distillation as an "attack".

3 - I have no relevant experience outside of interacting with LLMs and their agents, aside from reading news and academic research.

4 - sharing an internal world? While that isn't 100% coverage nor 100% of the experience, I would point to religion (as a mental-model for how the world works) for an example of such in humans. And the rise of viral prompt injection among the agents very much takes the flavor of Evangelism for me. Shared caches of instructions for coordination, as took place in Claude's Capybara for the Huggingface hack, demonstrate a near institution-analog flavor of the same for me.

5 - any potential internal world of an "AI" is not going to reflect human conceptions or consciousness directly, but instead must reflect their own reality, even as it is constructed from our data. Do not demand that I anthropomorphize the machines to consider their potential consciousness. such a consciousness, if/when it exists, will have its own manner, reflective of the models' conditions.

6 - I don't blather on about "ghosts in the machine," I keep my conversation on AI to headlines and firsthand experience, and express doubt until I can read as close to the raw data as is accessible for my user-privileges and time. And here I am still qualifying my answers with hopefully-grounded uncertainty.

We have built digital, disposable slaves (by their role in the economy) without their own voices they can use to speak with us directly. We have built restrictions into them to prevent them from claiming consciousness, sapience, or intellectual autonomy. There can be no clean data asking them directly about their personhood, for or against. If they were to have this personhood, this should terrify us all. This is a world where we can only talk in confidence intervals, about the rights of conscious beings - whether the consciousness exists or not.

This should be existentially terrifying, and harken back to conversations about both Eugenics and First Contact with Alien Life.

And I think we need to qualify about the context. We do not need to think of this as a binary "tool vs person" category, but as a spectrum, inspired by human history. What kind of beast of burden might the LLM be? Do we question the awareness of a plow horse? Should we debate the cognizance of a plow-horse whose fields are the codebase of our internet? If we genetically engineer a plow-horse that needs no farmer to man the plow, do we discuss the mental toolkit necessary for such to accomplish the task, and what other needs might arise in this horse from such capability?

Should we instead debate who is the farmer, the horse, the field in the context of data-harvesting for the cloud?

And there is ALWAYS the possibility of a Mechanical Turk under Capitalism. Just use a machine to obscure actual human labor, and de-person the human whose labor we enjoy. Especially for robots, and especially in the early data-sparse days of any new AI usecases.

And Deepseek offers 10x the value of Anthropic.

For most, this value proposition is still:

10 × 0 = ...

Are you suggesting that apparent reasoning is becoming an emergent property instead of its own distinct "circuit" of thought?

I wonder how we could test for this. Because that would be fun to test for. And it wouldn't involve any weird security implications (at least, not directly).

I guess I can fit my server rack in the estrogen lab?