Abyss @abyssatis

I have these big red eyes to clearly see the truth, however dark it may be. Joined March 2025

Tweets

3K
Followers

44
Following

106
Likes

9K

Abyss @abyssatis

43 minutes ago

@Corey_Yanofsky @AStratelates @dysangelistes Here we go…

1 0 1 15 0

View Details

@MattLutzPhi @HistoryBoomer …think we are fully in the dark either: we know at least that conscious experience, like subjective green, is not mere structure of something else, but exists in its own right. So it’s down to the very ontology of concrete reality. That does exclude functionalism/LLMs. 2/2

0 0 0 8 0

View Details

Abyss @abyssatis

2 hours ago

@MattLutzPhi @HistoryBoomer I’m not claiming that (“all and only…”), but just that we have enough reason to think those creatures are conscious. Whatever evolution did to get them conscious, it can in principle be done through another path, evolutionary or not. We just don’t know what. But I don’t… 1/2

1 0 0 6 0

View Details

Abyss @abyssatis

4 hours ago

@MattLutzPhi @HistoryBoomer Come on, that’s not hard. Natural selection. We are all products of it, and so are all mammals in a path pretty close to ours. Hence they likely have brains and bones too, as well as subjective experiences. Plus, their behavior is exactly what makes sense if they do have it.

1 0 0 8 0

View Details

Abyss @abyssatis

4 hours ago

@perrymetzger Consciousness is just subjective experience, any kind of sentience in first person. There’s nothing confusing here, just because the very thing is hard to square with the objective world. Hence moral worries about AI being conscious (it isn’t): it could feel pain/suffer then.

0 0 0 15 0

View Details

Abyss @abyssatis

4 hours ago

@NathanWalesVA @MancerAI_ @eyesofastorm Our sophisticated consciousness obviously can. But that’s not necessary. If a simple amoeba somehow had the faintest experience of light, say a subjective “glow”, that would already be consciousness. But zero capacity for reasoning there.

1 0 1 16 0

View Details

Abyss @abyssatis

4 hours ago

@Corey_Yanofsky @AStratelates @dysangelistes I would have to record my own mind and play in slow motion lol. But it might be the behavior first just fine, at least sometimes: when the priority is high enough, evolution made it so that you lose control and behavior is automated. Showing it is NOT normally automated btw.

1 0 0 43 0

View Details

Abyss @abyssatis

6 hours ago

@AlexCaswen @DaystarEld I have been reading Scott for 10 years now. Always thought of him as the best intellectual: it helped that, regarding AI doom, he is 10x less worried than Eliezer. Still it was always a point of disagreement. Now I can only see dogmatic ideological fever.

0 0 0 4 0

View Details

Abyss @abyssatis

6 hours ago

@Surveil__Lance @EldenMessmer @perrymetzger At least we will live more 10, 20, 30 years to settle this for good. Hopefully. Or 40 years from now doomers will still be like: “NOW MORE DANGEROUS THAN EVER! WE ONLY STILL ALIVE THANKS TO OUR NONSTOP FEAR-MONGERING IN THE LAST 40 YEARS!”

1 0 1 9 0

View Details

Abyss @abyssatis

9 hours ago

@Surveil__Lance @EldenMessmer @perrymetzger Most AI is not being sandboxed because it’s known to be safe enough to not be sandboxed. There’s no way that we will have AI that we are paying attention if it’s safe, testing, yet it really fools us and manages to not be sandboxed despite being super dangerous. That’s ludicrous.

1 0 0 8 0

View Details

Abyss @abyssatis

10 hours ago

@Corey_Yanofsky @AStratelates @dysangelistes That qualia are simple qualities and not structures is just obvious. If you have them, you know it. At best you can be confused or pretend you don’t get it. Your “operationalism” is just bad epistemology: “I know external facts depicted by qualia; I don’t know the very qualia”.

0 0 1 42 0

View Details

Abyss @abyssatis

13 hours ago

@XFilesAesthetic Yep. There’s a parallel universe somewhere where X-Files is written with a perfect balance between what Scully witnesses and what she believes. Also the show goes way longer before giving definitive proof that Mulder is right: that was a mistake.

0 0 2 67 0

View Details

Abyss @abyssatis

14 hours ago

@matt_olma That’s actually a low blow.

0 0 1 110 0

View Details

Abyss @abyssatis

14 hours ago

@Corey_Yanofsky @AStratelates @dysangelistes Back to the core example: subjective green is not just the structure of something else, like atoms, but it exists *as such* in its own right. It *is* exactly what it seems to be: it’s the very seeming itself. That’s a way of being, a nature – not a behavior or organization.

1 0 1 26 0

View Details

Abyss @abyssatis

20 hours ago

@FelixDelong Hypothesis: when the neural processing “tunes” the surrounding electromagnetic field into subjective mode. That’s not magic, but it’s down to the very ontology of EM fields, not – absurdly – to pure structure.

0 0 2 62 0

View Details

Abyss @abyssatis

22 hours ago

@Plinz Now just imagine how it sounds for those who, like myself, think his object level points are weak and strained – to put it mildly.

0 0 2 448 0

View Details

Abyss @abyssatis

23 hours ago

@Aella_Girl @clairlemon Nah. It’s criticism. Scott is just dogmatically framing all of it in a self-serving way, surely driven by ideological fever (it’s frankly unequivocal, if you are not under the same spell – oh, wait…). As one commenter said there:

0 0 3 171 0

View Details

Abyss @abyssatis

23 hours ago

@libpol_org @slatestarcodex @SarahTheHaider This time the moralist fever of AI doom pretty much imploded Scott’s usual sharpness. The text is dogmatic, the points strained, the framing self-serving. You can tell that the ONLY reaction deemed “non-irrational” is for Pinker to repent and convert. Otherwise it’s offensive.

0 0 1 17 0

View Details

Abyss @abyssatis

23 hours ago

@Corey_Yanofsky @AStratelates @dysangelistes Consciousness in humans doesn’t prove it came from brute causality. That’s wrong like a newtonian mechanicist saying that magnets prove that pure mechanical interaction can “bootstrap” electromagnetic fields. Like fields, minds aren’t mere structure, but exist in their own right.