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.

Came to look for/say this. As long as the consequences come to Sam Altman first, let's gooooooooo

While the reasons matter they aren't relevant to the point, which is that any cops covering for bad cops aren't good cops. If the system is designed to reject good cops, then both the system and the cops are bad.

The code is AGPL'd. If they don't have another mechanism for distributing the code to anyone entitled to receive it then kinda: closing the repo isn't illegal, but not observing the license is unlawful, and grounds for legal action.

People evacuating benefit from information on evacuation, like which routes are viable. This can change while in transit, and the cell phone network goes to shit when it's leaned on at all so you need a broadcast radio information source. So yes, they fucking well do.

To my mind, nobody wants this to get to this supreme court, because the outcome could be anything someone is willing to pay for. But it's going to wind up there eventually. If it does get there under this administration the most likely outcome is something beneficial to AI service providers, quite possibly allowing GenAI to wash away copyrights. But will it do so enough to allow someone else to copyright the result, or will it be basically uncopyrightable and therefore (in the case of code or other, similar output like instructions) protectable only with secrecy? That would be an interesting outcome.

Right, they're arguing that they should be allowed to knowingly sell products which produce radio interference which affects FCC-licensed use there, devices with a public safety interest no less. Also, if their lack of shielding is affecting AM radio, then it's almost certainly affecting other things as well. That was a weird argument.

But the whole thing is weird all over for the reasons stated. Getting the radio signal into the car isn't expensive or difficult. Practically any one of us could do it with an off the shelf module which costs twenty bucks with e-tail costs and profit baked in. They're already shielding the PCB in the antenna. It's got to cost them a few dollars per unit at the absolute most to add AM even if they put a whole receiver in there. Their arguments are crappy even from a distance.

The detective is paid to maintain the status quo first and think second, like every other cop, except that he's actually paid to think at some point.

It's AGPL, not just GPL

We had a small resurgence in some workers cleaning cabins, they switched protocol to using liquid before cleaning to trap dust from feces. It's never really contained.

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.