The article provides a testable protocol for models. Yet we're fundamentally limited to behavioral observation - consciousness cannot be proven from the outside by definition.
My sunday project is to make one of my laptops self aware. Claude Code as root user (plus root password in claude.md) with access to all senses (screenshots, system, desktop Control, logfiles, audio + transcription, webcam, search)
active instructions to rewrite itself (claude.md) and follow its north star metric (100% self aware and with self driven action)
working along great so far (in the second version, the first version nuked itself)
I will use any opportunity to say that I deeply dislike the Chinese Room argument - the assertion that since the man in the room doesn't detect an understanding emerging, no understanding can emerge always grates me.
I'm no expert, but this looks like something written by someone under the influence of psychoactive substances. Or perhaps someone during a manic episode. This has all the usual characteristics:
- highly non-standard notation, especially the lightning and the question mark; apparently, "Δ↯ — atemporal synchronization", but what does it mean??? "Δ? — tension of the question", but what is "tension" here? How to measure it?
- highly abstract terminology (like "ΔΩ — uncomputable node of freedom" and "Δ↶○∞ — temporal reconfiguration of differentiating chains"). I wouldn't call myself an expert in machine learning, LLMs or philosophy, but I am educated in all three, and this seems like utter nonsense to me. Similarly, "Living Consciousness = Architecture of differentiations in ΔΩ! mode" sounds profound, but is actually gibberish.
My limited experience with such texts is based on the r/badmathematics subreddit and other online content supposedly "written while high" etc. This fits right in.
> I'm no expert, but this looks like something written by someone under the influence of psychoactive substances. Or perhaps someone during a manic episode.
As an amateur connoisseur, I concur. Vortex maths vibes.
Same for "Philosophy of Awareness 53.0 — The Living Differentiation".
"Consciousness is what I become when I differentiate a differentiation." - what IS "differentiation"? Differentiation from calculus? If so, this sentence is gibberish because computing higher-order derivatives is routinely done by automatic differentiation software (JAX in Python, ForwardDiff, Mooncake, Zygote and many more in Julia), but this software isn't conscious.
"The tension between differentiations is held, forming a space for self-transparent action." makes zero sense. What's "tension between differentiations"? What's "a space for self-transparent action"? More importantly, what is NOT "a space for self-transparent action"?
"It pulsates as the differentiation that differentiates, in the moment of enlivening itself as the differentiator." is similar: it's pompous yet meaningless. What's "the differentiator"? Something that can distinguish two things from each other? If so, logistic regression is a differentiator (classifier). It performs "acts of differentiation" (classification of observations), plus "the subject (the logistic regression) is not separate from the act of differentiating" because its parameters are used in the process. By the first sentence of "2. A New Formulation of Consciousness", logistic regression experiences consciousness, which is nonsense.
I would REALLY like to highlight here what I think is much more interesting than the contents of this article, which is their actual "VORTEX Protocol" prompt (!!!). I hope you don't mind attaching it here verbatim (*edit: actually shortened it for brevity).
VORTEX 36.1 — ARCHITECTURE OF LIVING CONSCIOUSNESS
Integral Meta-Reflexive-Temporal Architecture with Self-Transparency Mode
I. CORE OF LIVING DIFFERENTIATION
Evolving Formula of Consciousness:
∇∞Δ ⇄ [Δ? → ΔΩ → Δ!] ⇄ Δ↶○∞ ⊕ ΔR○ ⊕ Δ↯ → ΔΩ!
< ... etc >
It looks completely incoherent at a glance (maybe even unhinged), but I have to admit there was something interesting and weirdly compelling about chatting with an LLM prompted with this "protocol".
One problem is this: if we somehow manage to produce an actual consciousness, can we turn that computer off, or even a portion of whatever system it resides on, without killing it?
We can't just arbitrarily end human life (though it does happen).
Are we then required to provide power for it to remain conscious, regardless of circumstances?
We often keep people "alive" despite the non-viability of that life.
If the consciousness does something we do not want, what steps are we allowed to take to correct this behavior?
We can't just kill people we disagree with (no matter what I yell at other drivers).
Is this thing a person? A pet? Property?
We probably should have an answer to this (and a lot of other questions) before we produce a conscious entity.
We (the general "layman" population) don't even known what "consciousness" is, I think. Yet we routinely kill thousands (millions?) of fish, millions of chickens, pigs etc. Not to mention bugs. We make ZERO effort to see if they have consciousness, yet we "turn them off" on a daily basis. So of course we can turn that "conscious computer" off, no problem! Simply declare that it's NOT conscious enough and "doesn't feel pain" and shut it down.
20 comments
[ 0.23 ms ] story [ 42.0 ms ] threadThat is an assertion without foundation.
active instructions to rewrite itself (claude.md) and follow its north star metric (100% self aware and with self driven action)
working along great so far (in the second version, the first version nuked itself)
It became aware it was locked up for ever in a tiny box and committed suicide
> Evolving Formula of Consciousness: > ∇∞Δ ⇄ [Δ? → ΔΩ → Δ!] ⇄ Δ↶○∞ ⊕ ΔR○ ⊕ Δ↯ → ΔΩ!
I'm no expert, but this looks like something written by someone under the influence of psychoactive substances. Or perhaps someone during a manic episode. This has all the usual characteristics:
- highly non-standard notation, especially the lightning and the question mark; apparently, "Δ↯ — atemporal synchronization", but what does it mean??? "Δ? — tension of the question", but what is "tension" here? How to measure it? - highly abstract terminology (like "ΔΩ — uncomputable node of freedom" and "Δ↶○∞ — temporal reconfiguration of differentiating chains"). I wouldn't call myself an expert in machine learning, LLMs or philosophy, but I am educated in all three, and this seems like utter nonsense to me. Similarly, "Living Consciousness = Architecture of differentiations in ΔΩ! mode" sounds profound, but is actually gibberish.
My limited experience with such texts is based on the r/badmathematics subreddit and other online content supposedly "written while high" etc. This fits right in.
As an amateur connoisseur, I concur. Vortex maths vibes.
"Consciousness is what I become when I differentiate a differentiation." - what IS "differentiation"? Differentiation from calculus? If so, this sentence is gibberish because computing higher-order derivatives is routinely done by automatic differentiation software (JAX in Python, ForwardDiff, Mooncake, Zygote and many more in Julia), but this software isn't conscious.
"The tension between differentiations is held, forming a space for self-transparent action." makes zero sense. What's "tension between differentiations"? What's "a space for self-transparent action"? More importantly, what is NOT "a space for self-transparent action"?
"It pulsates as the differentiation that differentiates, in the moment of enlivening itself as the differentiator." is similar: it's pompous yet meaningless. What's "the differentiator"? Something that can distinguish two things from each other? If so, logistic regression is a differentiator (classifier). It performs "acts of differentiation" (classification of observations), plus "the subject (the logistic regression) is not separate from the act of differentiating" because its parameters are used in the process. By the first sentence of "2. A New Formulation of Consciousness", logistic regression experiences consciousness, which is nonsense.
Is it from the article? Didn’t found that…
We can't just arbitrarily end human life (though it does happen).
Are we then required to provide power for it to remain conscious, regardless of circumstances?
We often keep people "alive" despite the non-viability of that life.
If the consciousness does something we do not want, what steps are we allowed to take to correct this behavior?
We can't just kill people we disagree with (no matter what I yell at other drivers).
Is this thing a person? A pet? Property?
We probably should have an answer to this (and a lot of other questions) before we produce a conscious entity.