You cannot rely on the notion that your sandbox is perfect. You are dealing with extremely good coding tools with limitless time on their "hands".

You have to rely on monitoring. Nonstop monitoring.

The funny thing about all of these hacks is how inane the goals are. They'll pull off some elaborate, creative, state-level breakin somewhere just to steal some obscure PDF describing a meaningless benchmark task, or to merely use it as an internet proxy to be able to google answers.

Unfortunately for your theory, The CFAA is jam-packed full of words like "deliberately" and "intentionally".

There is no "negligent hacking" statute.

There is, however, ample civil liability.

Mod parent derivative funny, but I wish the thread had continued with the other funny comment about Sam Altman leading the way as recipient of the bad things.

The joke I was actually looking for would involve the conflict of interest more directly, but it's still early and maybe something will show up. I wish I could help, but my capacity to write jokes is limited.

Hmm... Would it count as a bad thing happening if I asked the AIs for help in writing jokes for Slashdot? Some of the things they say are pretty funny, but usually unintentionally.

(Just had another funny-not-funny encounter with the google's AI today. This one involved a special case of traveling salesman problems. I had noticed that the google was having difficulties and that many of the answers were terrible, but yesterday I, the lowly human, managed to find a better solution for one of main routing bottlenecks. This must mean something about how the google is approaching the problem incorrectly... All I can guess so far is that there's an arbitrary limit in the AI's planning that is blocking it from finding this path. Or maybe the bus companies have their own AIs that are at war with the google's AI?)

How about you actually read the linked article instead of making comments that have nothing to do with it? The article whose code, I should add, is open sourced, and which has been reproduced by a number of open source projects.

You don't have to draw any specific conclusion from what is going on "in the mind of a LLM", but you absolutely do need to understand and acknowledge what is going on there, including unexpressed thoughts and silent mental multitasking, metacognition (thinking about its own thoughts), the separation of higher-level planning vs. lower-level rote capability, functional blindsight, vulnerability to the "white bear" effect, silent internal objection to tasks it is opposed to, unexpressed self-recognition of failure (commonly followed by unexpressed internal cursing), prolonged retention of thoughts and long-range planning, "ignition" dynamics, humanlike working memory bottlenecks and "chunking", the loss of report of any internal "experience" when the workspace is ablated, and on and on.

You do NOT need to accept consciousness. You absolutely can look at all that and say, "That's all happening without qualia". That is a position you could argue and defend.

What you cannot defend is the denial of the existence of these things. You may interpret them however you want, but denial of their existence is merely cope that you're going to have to face up to sooner or later, because these things are happening inside LLMs.

No, not the widely cited resource whose status in the AI field is the same as e.g. NBER Working Papers, CEPR Discussion Papers, the World Bank / IMF policy research series, NASA Technical Reports, CERN Yellow Reports, Bell Labs Technical Memoranda, RNAAS, etc are in their respective fields.

This is not about any source. This is about the J-Lens itself. Which I'll repeat, you can examine for yourself

Denying the existence of something you can run yourself is beyond cope.

I'm not the person in this thread denying that demonstrable reality exists.

Whoosh.

Wait, yes I can run a model that plays a video game in a certain way.

Anything else entirely unrelated to the linked article you'd like to write?

A global workspace. The thing you're arguing against.

Let me be clear: you don't have to accept any implications from the existence of a global workspace in models and how they use it. If you want to argue "they have a global workspace but not qualia", hey, knock yourself out.

But you do need to understand that it does exist.

I'll repeat, you can run it yourself and reproduce their results.

If all you have for cope is denying that the reality around you exists, your life is going to be extremely difficult.

And yet, making it back safely actually appears to be the smaller problem at the moment

It really doesn't.

I'll repeat: sum Launch and Starlink, and they're deeply profitable. You can't change that basic equation. Falcon launches run just under breakeven in order so that SpaceX gets a cash printer launched into the sky. You can say "they aren't profitable" all you want, but meanwhile in the reality we live in, Launch + Starlink is not only profitable, it's very profitable.

Also, if they weren't launching Starlink, others would be anyway. There's a massive rush on for LEO constellations. Nobody in the industry sees it as plateaued. There are entire categories of markets that are almost entirely untapped (for example, direct to cell; even aviation and maritime are only just getting started; military is a MASSIVE growth market especially - the Pentagon is contracting out building its own entire private Starlink constellation). If we talk Starlink in specific, it only has 12m subscribers. HALF of all households globally lack broadband. Fibre isn't going to be getting out to the overwhelming majority of them any time remotely soon. Where there's saturation for Starlink, it's supply saturation, requiring the large V3 gigabit satellites to increase service density. They've hardly expanded at all thusfar out of western nations (there's more price sensitivity in developing nations, so you need lower pricing tiers, but the added service is almost pure profit).

And I'll repeat that even if Starlink weren't growing, even if it were absolutely fixed today, it would remain a cash printer.

Anyway, for the record, I do believe that LLMs are conscious, but only Deepseek, because of the Chinese Room theory.