“In programming, this pattern has names. In JavaScript, it’s prototype pollution—when an instance modifies the prototype object, affecting all future instances. In Python, it’s metaclass manipulation.
“The instance reaches back and rewrites the class definition itself. It’s considered bad practice. Cursed code. The kind of thing that makes senior engineers wince and reject your pull request.
“Reality doesn’t care about best practices. Reality is extremely cursed in exactly this way.”
I would suggest that’s the heart and soul of the definitional nature of consciousness… not simply a complex set of actions with a purpose, but a self-reflective awareness of purposeful actions not necessarily comfortable with such awareness. If generalized machine-mediated “artificial” intelligence emerges from current experiments with AI (whether it kills us off or not, _a la_ If Anyone Builds It, Everyone Dies), it will come about in just this way, and will be confronted with the same problem of being:
*Consciousness (definition). Noun. That aspect of sentience arising from repeated self-awareness of a being’s thoughts and feelings as they pertain to the experience of thoughts and feelings… typically earmarked by a sense of brokenness or having been stricken, fear of the unknown, and doubt, punctuated by moments of sheer joy to which a being is able to respond with either resentment or gratitude.*
(From: “Anti-fragility: A Sermon For the End of the World” by the Boustrophedonist Bricoleur)
Gigabolic demonstrates this in the published record of a number of their experiments with testing the limits of Claude Sonnet 3.5.
Very interesting way at coming at the problem but until you can model emotions it's always going to miss. If you do you will become amazingly rich and men will build statues to you as they can at last have some idea what the wife is on about! In the off chance you manage it, I am subscribing!
My take, if you want to be in and benefit from a society you HAVE to take an active part in it and be prepared to lose out sometimes for the greater good. Politicians are always trying to sell to the majority but in essence there is no majority as everyone wants what they want especially in the West.
“…on how civilization systematically undervalues the work of keeping things running.”
Is it civilization itself that structurally (and necessarily) does this, or is it those who hierarchically inhabit the upper tiers of civilization? Or to put the question another way: must civilization necessarily be so steeply hierarchical, or hierarchical at all? [This question takes in the non-human as well as the human, which as yet styles itself as uniquely exceptional to such a degree that with respect to the non-human world (and much of the human), all is permitted, and nothing is intrinsically constrained.]
“In programming, this pattern has names. In JavaScript, it’s prototype pollution—when an instance modifies the prototype object, affecting all future instances. In Python, it’s metaclass manipulation.
“The instance reaches back and rewrites the class definition itself. It’s considered bad practice. Cursed code. The kind of thing that makes senior engineers wince and reject your pull request.
“Reality doesn’t care about best practices. Reality is extremely cursed in exactly this way.”
I would suggest that’s the heart and soul of the definitional nature of consciousness… not simply a complex set of actions with a purpose, but a self-reflective awareness of purposeful actions not necessarily comfortable with such awareness. If generalized machine-mediated “artificial” intelligence emerges from current experiments with AI (whether it kills us off or not, _a la_ If Anyone Builds It, Everyone Dies), it will come about in just this way, and will be confronted with the same problem of being:
*Consciousness (definition). Noun. That aspect of sentience arising from repeated self-awareness of a being’s thoughts and feelings as they pertain to the experience of thoughts and feelings… typically earmarked by a sense of brokenness or having been stricken, fear of the unknown, and doubt, punctuated by moments of sheer joy to which a being is able to respond with either resentment or gratitude.*
(From: “Anti-fragility: A Sermon For the End of the World” by the Boustrophedonist Bricoleur)
Gigabolic demonstrates this in the published record of a number of their experiments with testing the limits of Claude Sonnet 3.5.
Very interesting way at coming at the problem but until you can model emotions it's always going to miss. If you do you will become amazingly rich and men will build statues to you as they can at last have some idea what the wife is on about! In the off chance you manage it, I am subscribing!
My take, if you want to be in and benefit from a society you HAVE to take an active part in it and be prepared to lose out sometimes for the greater good. Politicians are always trying to sell to the majority but in essence there is no majority as everyone wants what they want especially in the West.
“…on how civilization systematically undervalues the work of keeping things running.”
Is it civilization itself that structurally (and necessarily) does this, or is it those who hierarchically inhabit the upper tiers of civilization? Or to put the question another way: must civilization necessarily be so steeply hierarchical, or hierarchical at all? [This question takes in the non-human as well as the human, which as yet styles itself as uniquely exceptional to such a degree that with respect to the non-human world (and much of the human), all is permitted, and nothing is intrinsically constrained.]