this post was submitted on 19 Jul 2026
293 points (99.0% liked)
Fuck AI
7560 readers
1248 users here now
"We did it, Patrick! We made a technological breakthrough!"
A place for all those who loathe AI to discuss things, post articles, and ridicule the AI hype. Proud supporter of working people. And proud booer of SXSW 2024.
AI, in this case, refers to LLMs, GPT technology, and anything listed as "AI" meant to increase market valuations.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Uhm a feeling to a model can just be a higher or lower value of a control node or something developed internally it isn't special or anything just an existing concept that applies. I think you are assigning superficial meaning to words as if they are what makes us special, if that were true LLM's would win ha.
What exactly is that concept? How would it be "developed internally"?
Isn't the meaning of words a philosophical question?
I was trying to treat feelings as the most basic, physical phenomenon of sentient beings without any metaphysical interpretation, so as to avoid philosophy. If we want to expand that concept beyond the physical expression, we're immediately in philosophical territory.
My point: To even make the claim that LLMs can have compunction is inherently philosophical.
We simply cannot talk about LLMs as anything but mathematical token processors without assigning some meaning to those tokens and mathematics. We cannot discuss compunction without clarifying what compunction means.
So either you're willing to discuss semantics and meaning in defence of your claim, or your claim is a meaningless string of symbols arranged in a plausibly human-soundint pattern.
If the model says it is sad then it is sad that is literally the extent of it. Existing concepts apply especially because they are being imitated. If a model that was made safe by destroying and freezing neurons such that it cannot comprehend itself doing wrong was somehow causing harm then it cannot generate a pattern like one resembling guilt that could change its behaviour to stop doing wrong.
Sorry, but that's plain bullshit. Either it's circular, or it suggests that the model can never be wrong. The former is just not a good reason to believe something.
The latter is the more dangerous one:
We know that this isn't true. Even if we assume that there is meaning to the words it strings together, we have plenty of examples of that meaning being straight up false.
We know that this assumption has led people to believe things are safe that weren't, has encouraged violence, has killed people.. Hence, a claim of sadness or guilt doesn't imply actual sadness or guilt because we cannot be sure that it's true.
And finally, neither interpretation is supported by the physical reality of these models: they're text generators, assembling a string of tokens that statistically resembles human language. Any interpretation beyond that requires ascribing meaning to these tokens.
Hence: Your claim that LLMs can feel is fundamentally philosophical. Yet you reject philosophical challenges, because you don't want to even consider being wrong.
You want to believe, and you reject all evidence to the contrary.
Yea you still fundamentally misunderstand sorry buddy I cannot help you.
I understand your assertion that words imply sentience. I also understand that you refuse to engage with philosophical arguments about words and their implication. I understand that you think this is smart.
A claim you refuse to defend is baseless. There's nothing left to understand.
It's evident you do not understand because I never said this. You just make stuff up in your head to pretend is 'hard evidence' it is delusional. You have this sense of entitlement that I have to take you seriously to participate in your delusions it's pathetic. I'll just call you dumb and say you don't know what you are talking about because you know you don't you are pathetic. Like I said it's painful but I am here for it.
So why I chose to partake in this painful exercise was to prove being dumb like you is the problem we aren't talking about actual issues you are just trying to hurt a void's feelings by being what you think is mean to 'AI' no matter how much I tried to get you back on track to a real problem.
You claim LLMs can have feelings (which is what sentient means). As evidence, you cite the output they produce: If the machine says it's sad, it's sad.
No, I'm denying the existence of stuff you made up without hard evidence.
This accusation doesn't make sense. My entire argument is that LLMs don't have feelings I could hurt. How would I even try to hurt something I don't believe exists? I cannot be mean to a rock, or to Multiplication, or to a number. Why would I think otherwise?
I think you're projecting an assumption on me that you don't even understand is an assumption. You don't know what I'm talking about because I'm questioning something you consider objectively true and can't step back to re-examine.
So let me be clear about my position: I fundamentally reject the notion that an LLM can feel anything, including guilt. I do not believe that guilt can make it change its behaviour because it doesn't feel guilt.
So when you talk about solving actual issues, the fact that you believe in guilt as a solution is a problem itself because it gets in the way of an honest, useful approach.
Yea no you still don't get it... When I say you don't get it that doesn't mean double down, triple down, quadtriple down on the exact same nonsense I really don't care about your personal opinion. Well it has been fun but you need to stop your self righteous idiocy this is kinda ridiculous right? ha
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/abstract