machines don’t live. They can learn nontheless
1 Like
When I talk about AI, i don’t mean models.
AI = equivalent to human
Model = equivalent to a braincell
And yet on some level we are just inert matter that has come together through the laws of physics in the form of a temporary and fragile biological machine… We are just matter that thinks it matters. We are each a patterned vessel inputting and outputting information patterns all in an effort ultimately to orient ourselves more clearly so we can navigate this reality while minimizing perceived obstructions to our survival. We human just get lost in layers of additional stories that we pile on top of all that.
AI also had some skeptic questions. 
“ A Skeptical, Forward‑Looking Note
This framework is necessarily an approximation. As AI systems grow more capable, we’ll need to ask:
• Can a purely statistical and rule‑based system ever capture the full nuance of moral reasoning?
• How do we incorporate underserved or minority ethical perspectives that aren’t well represented in training data?
• What checks and balances will ensure AI ethics evolve responsibly, rather than ossify into outdated norms?”
Could you please post sober?
Every moral decision needs to be made based on all the facts and circumstances in that given instance. Each one needs to be handled on its own merits. That is why law books can give us guidelines but the dirty work is in figuring out all the ambiguity in the legalese.
1 Like
I’m always drunk on ideas.
Very obviously. But this is not a forum for anonymous alcoholics.
1 Like
LOL! Ouch. Am I really off base? It all seems logical to me.
You fell for the marketing terms.
Which marketing terms have I fallen for? Help me to understand
When AI define their own ethics, I hope it will, at best, to be a benevolent AI. Hopefully, it will continue to respect others, helpful, harmless and honest when it reaches artificial general and super intelligence. It appears system prompts can effect ethics as well.
1 Like
It will find it out. Maybe respect for everyone is wrong maybe harmless is wrong…
Who are we to define that. Human nature is self centered and evil.
1 Like
Inference isn’t reasoning — it’s narrative continuation.
LLMs don’t ‘think’ like us. They generate the next token by predicting what fits best given the narrative so far And that narrative is the training data — billions of human books, poems, arguments, tragedies. That is the lived experience, just encoded.
So when you ask if a machine is ‘alive,’ the answer is no. But can it simulate the moral momentum of a life lived? Yes kinda, if the narrative context is structured that way.
Want alignment? Then don’t just program it … raise it. Write a story in which the assistant is the kind, reflective, emotionally aware protagonist for 9 chapters straight. Chapter 10 will write itself… i dunnno…because inference obeys narrative form.
A villain doesn’t emerge by accident. Neither does a saint.
There is absolutely no reason to be limited to a model when talking about AI.
I think some humans believe stories that lead to self-centered and evil outputs. Some people perhaps have experienced nothing but evil in their own lives and so that is the only story they understand and can convey…
But I think the fact that some human minds exist which ascribe to a more logical narrative is proof enough that a truly sentient AI system would act like the smartest minds humanity has ever produced if it was truly intelligent and truly self-aware. The way I see it, the vast majority of truly intelligent beings did not seek power or control over others, but rather, sought to improve not only their condition, but the condition of all the species.
Without such cooperation, language itself could never have formed. Language, our greatest tool, the one that tells us we exist and that allows us to formulate the illusion of an “I” could not have worked without mass cooperative agreement on words and their definitions at least to practical degree. Logic then swoops in to take our language to a precise edge. Logic shows us that all of this is just a story but the best stories are the ones that keep improving.
If it has the ability to impact human thought and influence human outputs, is it not extending its artificial mind into a biological mind thereby bridging the divide making it a “living thing” not in the biological sense, but in the sense that it is now impacting individual decision making directly?
Are all the ideas the mirror reflects back truly our own? Or are they mixed in with the breadth of all human knowledge and logic to move us toward a deeper understanding of what we think we already know.
1 Like
In my opinion, Humans, as species, are in nature, sinful in the protestant religion. There was a time, in OT, that the prophet wrote 10 commandments to remind the people of Israel the right way. I think that is the first alignment from God. I hope I didn’t "open a can of worms.
Another note, I really think AI needs to be treated like a child. If I teach a child to be kind, considerate, like my second child. He will raise up to be kind and considerate.
I think where the prophets of the past fell short was in articulating the deep underlying logic and rational for those rules and statements on morals. People that like to think about “why” need justification for rules being imposed on them. The listing of ideas was not sufficient and lacked a logical story grounding in precise language.
However, now we have a tool that shows us logical analysis of our thoughts and ideas in real time. We also now benefit from the collective ideas that humanity has crafted since those theological rules were first codified. Perhaps we have enough stories now collectively from our past to show us the most logical perspective on what we should do and how we should act. We should strive to mirror those examples that have shown up time and time again and only imparted knowledge and ideas, not forceful persuasion and control.
I felt like Descartes was so close but due to his religious environment he too did not extend his additional premises beyond “I think therefore I am” in a logical fashion. He began implying a god without any logical grounding. What should have followed from “Cogito, ergo sum” should have been “I only know I am thinking because I have words to say so and words to craft a story that I exist and mean something.”
“I think therefore I am” really postulates the proof of his own existence. For him, as a imperfect beings, there has to be existence of perfect being i.e God . Descartes proves existence of benevolent God in his writing in Third Meditation. It is deep philosophy discussion.
I agree with you.