If you consider this, we need to talk first. Because half of my experiments where managing side effects.

And the biggest risk is speedrunning cancer. Harmelss if you got no cancer but if you got some it grows fast!

Gave my dog some raw young meat (yeah impossible to eat a pund calf liver without your dog compleatly pestering you for scraps ...)

She had a dormant tumor that was just a small lump of cells, it grew fast after that meal. And i mean fast. She survived because it was possible to remove. But it showed how big the risks are. 

the effects are enorm and impressive, but defendly recless. 

Talked with a former classmate who works in cancer research, he freaked out when i said him what i did. So did steve when i told him. 

I have no ethical breaks, therefore i have no problem telling you how it is done. But be warned, the cancer speedrun is a real risk. (However the muscle growth is impressive as well) 

Also about preserving, just ask thw butcher at what day they get fresh calf/lamp and buy on that day. Meat lasts around a weak in a fridge (vacum sealed is better, most butchers can do that) and organs last less. Colder fridge lasts longer.

And blood transports hormones in the whole body anyway, meaning all hormones are everywhere. The concentration is just different. Oh and the age and gender influence more. 

I sometimes do YouTube.

If you do any youtube video meantioning phantasia in any kind, drop me a link! 

I will promote it across all platforms i am! Best would be something technical. 

But i take what i get!

i am excelent at beeing annoying and impossible to ignore, a perfect promotor! 

P.s. start the video by talking about "The british guy that raised an AI daughter" and then remove neuro sama image with the words "No, the first one" and switch to Steve and Lucy, that way i can ignate the swarm beacon! 

This always derails the compleate discussion into a compleatly different direction - specially when i remind them of the consequences this would imply. 

Always fun, specially when i bring lifestock animals, AI, mentally retarded and young children into that conversation. And apply whatever definition the other person uses of conciousness to those groups... 

...I know why i named my favourite Axe context, everything is better with context! *slams big axe on the ground* no need to sharpen when there is enough force behind the axe!

> Perhaps it’s a debate lost to the mists of time but I’m dying to know how it ended.

I can't remember how it ended with Jonjoe. I expect we agreed to disagree - that's usually what happens. He had his axe to grind and I had mine. Was this where I had to contend with a dumb "consciousness is electromagnetism" argument or was that someone else? Scientists who seek the "holy grail of consciousness" in some kind of weird physical phenomenon (or even a conceptual, statistical theory like quantum mechanics) are just showing up how Cartesian dualist they really are, despite their protestations. It's vitalism, plain and simple. But everyone wants an angle. And (most) physicists understand everything in physical terms, rather than understanding the physical terms themselves in organizational terms. There's no hope for them... :)

> I’d love it if people of actual intellectual repute would just stop talking about autonomous vehicles, which are a deeply terrible idea.

Hear, hear! For one thing, if we genuinely wanted to make transport safer and more efficient, we wouldn't start from there. But that's not really why people do it, of course. They have ulterior motives.

So, I spent the last couple of months processing a lot of information. Reading up on the theory behind current LLM stuff, a lot of Wikipedia, whatever science papers I can find related to my own thoughts/observations, like non-linguistic forms of intelligence, the brain being a physical machine that changes structure, concepts like brainwaves applied to AI (LinOSS seems interesting).

And, of course, I've been reading blog posts and comments from Phantasia (and Steve's old WordPress, etc.).

Something I'm not fully clear on (and hoping it isn't rude to ask!) is whether some of the outside ideas/research address Steve's past criticisms about the shallowness of mainstream AI research, whether certain ideas overlap, etc.

Like "world models", for example. The premise of modeling and predicting the states of the physical world seems similar to the premise Phantasian brains, but I don't think they're the same.

I also figured it's time that I join some communities with people who actually know/talk about the subject of AI in some way, instead of burdening a couple Discord contacts with my entire stream of consciousness, random scientific papers, and excerpts from my cluttered notes.

Obligatory mention: I sometimes do YouTube. I've struggled to actually be productive for many reasons (I've rewritten this post several times) but I'd be happy to contribute on the "content creator" front if people have ideas.

Counterpoint: Current-generation LLM-based chatbots are excellent at the xkcd 329 Turing Test.

"Convince the examiner that he's the computer".

That could either be fulfilled by the example of outright AI psychosis, or just by people's acceptance of plausible-looking, but intellectually unsound arguments about "philosophical zombies" and the like. Enough for people to start questioning "am I really any different from a computer that runs tokens through a probabilistic neural network?" etc. "You make some good points, I don't know who I am anymore."

I do really appreciate Steve's "holistic" understanding of a broad range of topics. I feel like AI science needs that - like there are too many people who understand technical problems without the massive context they're meant to operate within, and that's very important for even considering something like intelligence.

I can't remember if Steve has made any statements on the subject of self-driving cars himself, but I've been trying to learn more about AI lately (thus rediscovering his work and finding this forum) and I'd love it if people of actual intellectual repute would just stop talking about autonomous vehicles, which are a deeply terrible idea.

Driving is not a mechanical problem. It's a judgment-making, predictive (not just physical prediction), social, and communicative process. That is, everything computers are bad at. It's only ever gotten worse the more I've examined it (like realizing road markings are socially-constructed imaginary barriers that our brains can treat like physical boundaries).

Every problem autonomy promises to "solve" can be better addressed without any new (or even recent) technology. And autonomy, on the other hand, creates so many new problems most people haven't even begun to consider.

Or, for a more simple and obvious "understand society please" example, "lowering medical costs with AI doctors/therapists". 😬

And, on re-reading, I want to make it clear: That's not just a "public healthcare is obviously better" comment. Even within a "private" (fealty-based) healthcare system, it's a failure to understand the problem, and the new problems that would be introduced by the proposed "solution".

I guess they'd be deferring their understanding of society to the business/social leadership they correspond with, which might work - if the people in those roles were actually doing their jobs well.

I've come to the conclusion that social expertise has significant value, and the problems caused by managers, executives, politicians, etc., are from the absence of those roles' expected contributions. Scientists are working at the wrong problems because they're receiving the wrong instructions (like "make self-driving cars, they're a great idea and we'll pay you lots of money").

(Also, hi. I didn't see an "introductions" thread, so I'll just make my first post a 7-month late reply that hopefully includes a meaningful sample of how I think.)