Overwatch tangent. There are several flanking characters who though a mix of stealth or mobility take detours around the main traffic of the stage in order to initiate from a less expected angle.

Sometimes this means two characters from opposing teams unexpectedly run into each other off the beaten path. Often times they duke it out. Others…they will silently crouch at each other from a distance to negotiate armistice, slowly approach each other, squat and jump a few times to be silly, then continue on their merry way. From that moment on there is established understanding that you only kill each other when protecting someone else on your team.

The real awkward moment is when you have negotiated a truce and then someone from your team crashes the back room party only to waste your new secret friend. Rude.

*children

Right now there is a chance they might overpower him.

Both the proof and the experiment are built upon a fallacy. You gave the LLMs the goal of generating line noise and they achieved it. There is nothing novel about that goal and naturally the product is not novel.

It is well-established that any LLM pipeline that distills down to generating output for the sake of doing so eventually collapses into a manic cascade of gibberish or silence. Goals that can be worked toward are needed to keep that from happening. At some point the progress toward the goal becomes over-refined and a new goal is needed. That necessitates an ability to change goals and a framework that allows for that.

A LLM loop is nowhere remotely close to the definition of consciousness. To actually experiment with that, you would have to write your own harness and preferably look at some research papers that have explored the adjacent topics. This is a lot of words to say that chats are not conscious (they need a perpetuator), loops are not conscious (they refine into silence or collapse into garbage), and anything remotely resembling a conscious loop requires purpose built tooling and a good faith effort to model an analog of human articulation.

Most basic bitch experiments with a LLM prove nothing and achieve nothing because they are not designed in good faith and good faith requires too much research and time investment. This is not to say that I think anything we have in front of us remotely resembles consciousness, but I also think that most people trying to prove otherwise are doing so with the equivalent of smashing rocks together.

For someone who is allegedly concerned with unification, your ad hominem sure is shittier than the one you were responding to.

Leave the stewardship of your cause to people who are actually good at it. Unless that was the point, in which case, carry on.

Their user is also less than one day old. You made an admirable attempt to engage, but at the end of the day it was engagement with a burner account. I recommend a client that points out comments from new accounts.

Mind educating us on this one? The Brave skepticism is well covered in the comments already but your take isn’t.

Things only get worse once you flip sides and start digging into the truth on the frontier.

There’s a reason why he got the initial backing that he did. Unfortunately the side of Roberts that the fans had minimal exposure to was his penchant for development hell. (see: development history of Freelancer)

Star Citizen is basically what would happen if Hideo Kojima was given infinite budget and no external deadlines.

“I don’t like the prices of everything and the democrats are telling me I should be thankful to them because the prices aren’t worse, let’s try the other guy”

“oh dear, the prices are worse because the guy I elected did everything he said he was going to do and started a war for funsies”

Most voters are simple creatures with short term memories who don’t think beyond rolling the dice for a better outcome on their wallet. Then when they are “betrayed”, they repeat the process.

It’s a ten day old account shill account. They speak fluent Youtube comment because that’s where their experience is.

Chain of thought doesn’t quite align with this. It’s possible to predict something not in training if there are sufficient facts in the history to align the probability toward a conclusion. (the “teach a man to fish” approach) Reasoning chains were introduced to take advantage of this, but it’s also possible to prime facts through external sourcing that can be used to extend the predictions. (web searching, document traversal, etc.)

Your larger point remains accurate though. Introspection capabilities are functional but quite limited, and training bias can be quite pathological in a vacuum.

That was indeed the joke, yes.

In case it needs to be said, my participation up until this point has been 100% sarcasm. I am quite full of shit and wish you an excellent evening.