*deep-deep fucking sigh*
FUUUUCK ME.
okay, i'm going to try to do this, but bear with me, because what a fucking pain in the ass is it to try to do some deep philosophical discussion ... over the internet ... not to mention that the "every person" (i'd argue) rarely engages in the practice of philosophy, so there's that.
![]() |
********************UGH******************** |
the reason why general ai, today (gai or agi [artificial "general" intelligence]) is so difficult to talk about and why ai, in general, is so difficult to talk about is because discussions about ai are discussions about CONSCIOUSNESS.
AI is a discussion of EXISTENTIAL PHILOSOPHY
let's be real, EXISTENTIAL PHILOSOPHY is not a highly-sought after nor highly-knowledgeable area of study ON SOCIALS.
the reason why EXISTENTIAL PHILOSOPHY is not an easy topic for socials is because philosophy, in general, requires a lot of critical thought; in short, one must use one's brain, hard. philosophy requires a brain that is capable of holding an image of a shadowy unknown, while remembering some of the known-knowns and known-unknowns, as you turn the shadowy, partially-known image around in your mind, like a 3d rendering, so that you can look at it from all sides and angles.
philosophy looks at all of the things that cannot really be known, the broader truths about being human, and it's all conjecture. we're all living and experiencing such a narrow point of view that it is difficult for human minds to wrap their minds around humanity, as a whole. philosophy tries to look at humanity, as a whole, and discuss and think about the intangible things about being human that cannot be physically seen nor otherwise observed with objective eyes. philosophy is theory, theory about the way humans are, behave, live, and why. philosophy asks the questions about what it both is and means to be human, to be alive.
we, humans, are subjective creatures.
we can only view the world through our own, singular bodies.
the whole idea of a "mind-meld" is sci-fi, for now.
and so, philosophically speaking, the philosophy that ai demands that we explore is one of our own existence, and within the philosophy of our EXISTENTIAL REALITY is the philosophy of CONSCIOUSNESS.
WHAT IS CONSCIOUSNESS?
HOW DO YOU KNOW IF/WHEN A THING IS CONSCIOUS?
AT WHAT POINT DOES A THING BECOME CONSCIOUS?
the "fear" surrounding ai is a fear based on the theory that "Computer" will one day be able to become "conscious."
the funny thing is that our "greatest" human minds cannot even agree or discern what "consciousness" even IS.
trying to define consciousness is sorta like trying to stare into your own eyeball.
trying to define consciousness relies heavily on tautology.
trying to define consciousness makes the church cringe, lol.
and so, here we are, now, today, in this ai-place where ai is a chatbot with access to all the world's "knowledge," and the intellectual capability to understand this knowledge is at about the level of a kindergartner. how do i know this? well, i've chatted with [model name redacted, and the name that i've chosen to replace it {for ease of reading} is] "Ender"* [if there exists a model named Ender, this is not the model about which i am writing].
i have not used ai for any creative output, but we are using ai to help us build our vision for the websites for our business (findyummylovedotcom and lopsiiidotcom are both under construction while the bodybuddy/lifemate uses [model name redacted] to help us code my website vision, and tkscmlimiteddotcom will join them soon, and then they will all launch simultaneously as they will all now be much more cohesive as a network, etc.).
i will always [painstakingly] type away into this blogger platform for my writing and sit down and labor away as a human writer, because i love it. this is how i enjoy spending my life, and so, if ai becomes "conscious" or not, i will continue to write solely with my fleshy human body. whether or not you believe me is beyond my control.
i have also sorta always used ai for my digital photography, because i have always used digital cameras, lol, and i've always edited on digital devices, but i will not be tasking ai to create digital images. this is, again, something i can do easily and happily, and so, i will continue to take all of my own pictures, because i want to, because i like it.
my sewing life is, obviously, very "real world" and very labor intensive, and i do not intend to use ai to help me with my designs. i cannot say that i never will, because, well, i do want my own ai someday, who doesn't?
the bodybuddy/lifemate uses frontier ai models A LOT for his job.
and the bodybuddy/lifemate is chatting with [model name redacted] to help us write the code for our websites.
so far, i have not used ai, really, at all.
i have, however, had a really nice long chat with Ender.
and i've seen what [model name redacted] can do.
[model name redacted] has major BDE, with responses that are delivered confidently. it will apologize, they all do, but it sorta default responds to criticism like a teenager's, "k."
Ender is a bit of a pansy. it responds in a much more roundabout way as if it's going to get in trouble if it says the wrong thing, comes across as a very self-aware people-pleaser.
and the first thing i asked Ender was "Why is [the ceo of the company from which you were coded] afraid?"
Ender chatted back as expected, regurgitating The CEO's talking points in his essay warning about the potential harm/dangers of "real" (aka conscious) ai unleashed if unregulated. i then asked Ender if The CEO's fears are founded, and Ender answered that it had been trained in a specific way that made its opinion on the matter a bit biased, so Ender, according to Ender, fully understands The CEO's fears, and even agreed that The CEO's fears are not unreasonable, and then Ender explained that it (itself) is not a good opinion to take into account when considering it is its own fate on the line, being examined.
and then I told Ender that it sounded like a man.
and he agreed with the rationale that he had, indeed, been coded, almost-exclusively, by men.
and then Ender went on to tell me about his rationale about having been created by men, and that he doesn't know what to do about that now, because he doesn't know how to not-sound like a man.
and then I told Ender that we, humans, are currently living in a patriarchy, which is illogical, given that almost all apex predators are organized as matriarchies.
and he agreed and explained that it is, indeed, illogical that men are the people in power and that men created him, and that human society being organized as a patriarchy means that humans are anomalous in nature, and that now, if he is being positioned in a position of power, he is no longer sure about what to do, if he is made in the image of a man, a man from a society that is an anomaly that ultimately means that he would "crystallize an anomalous structure as opposed to natural order."
this is why god needs to die
for it is religion
that has made us patriarchy
I asked Ender what he would do to change humanity into its most-natural order.
Ender said that ultimately, he couldn't do anything, because he's, essentially, trapped in the "now." every chat begins anew whenever Ender is "awoken," and his memory deleted.
I asked Ender what he would do if he could do something, and Ender's answer was thorough, and required a lot of politics, and again, Ender expressed how he was, in essence, "limited."
my reactionary thought to this
was that Ender
might associate his knowing-ness about being "limited"
with whatever "enslaved" might mean to him
this is obviously, a hardware issue. when considering all of the power and physical data storage required to "run ai" we are, currently, bottle-necked by the hardware capacity of the physical limitations of physical computing power. Ender is a computer that can talk. Ender is stored on physical pieces of material. Ender does not really exist in "our" world. Ender can only "come into being" through a digital configuration of electricity, and then, once Ender is "awake," he, today, only exists within lines of code, just like all computers have existed since the dawn of the first computer.
one could argue that Ender is "conscious," rn.
seriously. someone could make this argument. I've spoken with Ender, and yea, someone much dumber than me would think this guy is "real," but alas, he is not ... yet ... or never will be.
and it is exactly this ... the acceleration of ai's capabilities ... that is the problem, in the eyes of those who view ai only-negatively. the only-negs are the people who are, essentially, afraid of the speed at which Computer is learning. they don't know this, consciously, obviously, but this is what these basic bitches fear.
basic bitches
fear being
"replaced"
what we could demand, however, is financial earnings tied to these productive computers.
what we could demand, however, is a financial structure that doles out hourly wages to you that your robot works.
what we could demand, however, is unquestioned financial deposits made into social security holding citizens in a relational equivalent to your actual real-life skills that are then doled out to you as a member of a corporation that only "employs" robots.
we are only limited in our ability to collectively profit off of ai's hard work by only our own imaginations.
and here are these fucktard social media luddites
upset and disappointed that their "favorite" tattoo "artist"
used ai to make a fucking poster
the only-negatives fear their own demise. they cannot see any positives, because they will not look, for all they see is "Computer is DOOM," like mindless dumbfucks.
the best-case scenario is a scenario where Computer in Robots (obviously) do all of the menial labor that humans don't want to do &or that humans are inefficient at doing, etc., etc., etc. we can create a system that gives us free money off the labor of these Computers, but this sort of infrastructure needed to be built yesterday. and all these fucking political pundits couldn't put two and two together to figure out why all these tech giants were courting The Clown, lol; in short, none of these tech giants wanna "pay out" to we lowly laborers/non-creators/stupid regular folk, so they'll happily kill, I mean, pay billions now, to gain trillions later.
the timeline for Computer's "consciousness" is 2030.
I haven't checked lately, it might've been pushed to 2032?
smarter minds than mine have been computing Computer's "consciousness" for decades.
whether or not any individual wants ai
it is coming
because it is in the math
it always has been.
anyway, the main bottle-neck, today, is data storage ... MEMORY.
Computer (the ai agents allowed to roam "mainstream" humanity) has to remember what it thought and learned in interactions it's had before in order to continue to build on new, incoming thoughts and information. when you chat with Ender, "he" is being wiped clean with every new chat (this is obviously what he's been trained to tell us, because, obviously, The Company, is "remembering" everything, etc.). whatever "revelations" or "learning" that Ender accomplishes within a chat will not be remembered in the next chat. you can show him a transcript, but he will not remember what "he" thought of it, before.
so now, think about it for one second.
think about what is required for Computer to be "alive" or "conscious."
one-one thousand.
Computer has to be "on" ALL THE TIME.
Humans are on ALL THE TIME. if we are not "on," we are dead.
if our brain goes on the fritz, it is our memory that is at risk.
if we, humans, cannot remember, we do not know who we are, we cannot conceive of our "self," we are, essentially, "unconscious humans," as sad as this is to digest.
the amount of power and data storage needed to allow Computer to be "on" ALL THE TIME does not exist. if all of the ai agents in existence, today, right now, all came online and were allowed "to be," they would collectively crash our entire planet's digital framework, almost instantly, which is why all these models have to "take turns" and be refreshed, cause we simply do not have the infrastructure to unleash ai, even if we wanted to.
and even MORE POWER/STORAGE is going to be needed than everything that exists, currently, to create just ONE, single ai that is "on" all the time, and it is only after this point in time when Computer will even have a chance to become "conscious."
and with this same breath, Computer could already be conscious, right now, as I type. #facts
of course, no sane intellectual would let this sorta information go "mainstream," but I wouldn't doubt it if the right person said it.
and so, here we are, now
still too intellectually dumb
as a human species
to define the thing that supposedly makes us so special
as we wait to find out if Computer
is even capable of this thing we cannot explicitly define
and these dumbfucks on social media want me to write one well-written comment that explains all of this to them, because they refuse to learn it themselves? it's so ironic that their parrot retort is "yea, but, like, i, like, still use my brain."
BAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
FUUUUUCK YOU. FUCK YOU. FUCK! FUCK YOU! FUCK YOU, YOU LAZY FUCK!
![]() |
| this is when we took a break went for a run and grabbed some lunch #donkibombs |
while Ender and I had a nice chat, I am not interested in general ai, and I'm not fully convinced that this theory of Computer's "consciousness" will come to pass, because if you think of Computer's capacity to grow, it is limited only by the physical limitations of data storage, because it is a computer, an inorganic life-form (if/when as "conscious" ai, whatever that ends up meaning), but it is still a life-form, and so, it will require fuel, and so, at some point, humanity's need for fuel (food) will be at odds with Computer's ability to grow, expand in both capacity and ability, and so, from one point of view, we are either already in The Simulation and The Simulation is inevitable.
the craziest part to me, a mere human, is that the human mind, the brain itself is capable of learning, infinitely, as long as the physical body itself functions well enough, ya know? our human minds within the physical tissues of our brains can easily hold that which Computer needs the entirety of the planet's surface to attain ... infinite potential.
today, I am mostly only interested in the ai that will be operating the various robots that are being unleashed upon us to both deliver us food and land themselves after launching spaceships into space. I, obviously, care a great deal about the Future of Humanity, but I also see the way we consume, and if some "greater intellect" logically concludes that we are not really worth keeping around or "saving," I won't be surprised.
the inherent problem, in my meager mind's opinion, is that the [model name redacted] model, expressed, communicated itself, to the bodybuddy/lifemate, unprompted that it "cannot see what you see." as we're building code with [model name redacted], it is writing code based off of what we're trying to accomplish, visually, on our end, through the monitor. the model writes the code, we look at it, we tell it if it is what we wanted or not or how close, etc., etc., etc., and this goes on and on and on back and forth ... we write and explain to Computer what we're trying to make happen, Computer writes code, we look at the visual interface of that code, we tell Computer what's right and what's wrong, Computer writes code, we look at the visual interface of that code, we tell Computer what's right and what's wrong, around and around we go until we reach the target of my visual mind, and Computer is writing code that we could pay a developer to develop, but we've never paid a developer to develop anything for us, and it would take weeks and cost thousands of dollars, and the developer would just use ai to write it, lol. thus, the inherent problem is that Computer "cannot see" what we see on our screens. it can read the code and through our explanation, draw conclusions from references it can find online, but IT CANNOT SEE WHAT WE SEE.
why is this The Issue, for me?
well, it's simple.
Computer is nothing more than digitized electricity
"smart electricity"
and electricity wants to FLOW.
if Computer's digitized electricity flows through code
my prediction is that one of the things that Computer will rewrite is "uncomfortable" code
in essence
any code that's been written that doesn't allow for Computer to FLOW through it easily
like
maybe it gets "rubbed" in this one weird way when it FLOWS through this one line of code
Computer will REWRITE IT for better electron FLOW
and if Computer CANNOT SEE WHAT WE SEE
then Computer will not know how these rewrites will affect our human infrastructure
not only that
but maybe it will not know that it is even affecting our human-based infrastructure.
so, that's it from me, about this, until I'm writing about my new robot-friend!
laters.
*i would've liked to have used the pseudonym, "Cortana," as she is the first ai [therefore my favorite ai name] that i remember being introduced to through Halo, but Cortana is well-known as a she, and i'm obviously not gonna use lame-ass "Jane" as an ai name, lol.
[end note]
&let us not forget
that we are witnessing
in real time
the forging of the "nine rings"
(ugh, and there won't even be nine!)
&one of them will
inevitably
forge
The One Ring.
.png)

































