It’s pretty simple really. Liberals midwife a fascist system by justifying capitalist property relations while distracting people from class intersectionality with identity politics.

good point

The issues people bring up with Signal are very easy for anybody with a minimally functioning brain to understand, and none of these experts are able to provide a credible answer to them.

The key issues people point out over and over is that Signal is a central server hosted in the US that harvests people’s phone numbers on sign up. The users are trusting server operators with their privacy at that point because there is no way to verify how this data is used. Since the server associates real identity with the account, it is in position to map out networks of people communicating. And if this data is shared with intelligence agencies, which they wouldn’t be allowed to disclose, then those can trivially correlate the personally identifiable information with all the other data they have access to.

If there’s a person of interest, and you map out whom that person wants to have private conversations with, that’s very useful data. Once you know that, then you can start tracking all the activities of their associates, and map out a whole network of people. Say, people organizing unions, or coordinating labor strikes, and so on.

This is an obvious problem with Signal, one that doesn’t take any significant expertise to understand, and one that has never been fully addressed. People talk about things like sealed sender, but that doesn’t address the problem I just outlined.

The core issue is that you have to trust the physical infrastructure rather than just the cryptography. The protocol design for sealed sender assumes the server behaves exactly as the published open source code dictates. A malicious operator can simply run modified server software that entirely ignores those privacy protections. Even if the cryptographic payload lacks a sender ID, the server still receives the raw network request and all the metadata attached to it. Your client has to talk to the server and identify itself before any messages are even sent.

When your device connects to send that sealed message, it inevitably reveals your IP address and connection timing to the server. The server also knows your IP address from when you initially registered your phone number or when you requested those temporary rate limiting tokens. By logging the raw incoming requests at the network level, a malicious server can easily correlate the IP address sending the sealed message with the IP address tied to the phone number.

Since the server must know the destination to route the message, it just links your incoming IP address to the recipient ID. Over time this builds a complete social graph of who is talking to whom. The cryptographic token merely proves you are allowed to send a message without explicitly stating who you are inside the payload. It does absolutely nothing to hide the metadata of the network connection itself from the machine receiving the data.

This once again makes it very suspicious that Signal insists on running a single centralized server.

It is absolutely irrelevant who makes the criticism, what needs to be addressed is the criticism itself. If somebody gives you advice to simply trust people blindly then you should be very suspicious of their motivations.

Liberalism is objectively a right wing ideology. Liberalism consists of two main parts. First is political liberalism which focuses on wholesome ideas such as individual freedoms and democracy. Second is economic liberalism which centers around free markets, private property, and wealth accumulation. These two aspects form a contradiction. Political liberalism purports to support everyone’s freedom, while economic liberalism enshrines private property rights as sacred in laws and constitutions, effectively removing them from political debate.

As a result, liberalism justifies the use of state violence to safeguard property rights, over supporting ordinary people, which directly contradicts its promises of fairness and equality. Private property is seen as a key part of individual freedom under liberalism, and this provides the foundational justification for the rich to keep their wealth while ignoring the needs of everyone else. Thus, the talk of freedom and democracy ends up being nothing more than a fig leaf to provide cover for justifying capitalist relations.

You’re making a category mistake here confusing quantity with quality.

I could say that they experience negative feedback when given a thumbs down and positive feedback when given a thumbs up which is something akin to a conscious experience.

You could also say a thermostat experiences negative feedback when you turn it down. That’s not really a meaningful definition.

Also, the notion of philosophical zombie is indeed absurd. Dennett dismantles this idiocy in Consciousness Explained quite thoroughly. My view that consciousness requires having a system that’s capable of introspection in a sense that it is able to observe its own internal patterns and to be aware of itself. Such a system would obviously not be restricted to humans or even biology. There is absolutely no reason why a neural network implemented on a different substrate could not be conscious. You’re making quite a lot of assumptions about what I’ll say, while ignoring what I’m actually saying here.

There obviously is an argument to counter, which is that the way LLMs work does not appear to be in line with any definition of consciousness we have right now. If you disagree with that, then feel free to provide a definition of consciousness that would credibly account for the notion of LLMs being conscious.

It’s also rather absurd to claim that consciousness is spiritual woohoo nonsense given that we all have an internal experience. That’s fundamental denial of the observed reality. Consciousness does not in any way presuppose that humans are special, but it is a property of the configuration of physical systems where matter is arranged in a particular way to produce patterns that constitute internal experience.

that’s a rather narrow definition of consciousness

While we don’t have a definitive model for what consciousness is, there are definitely compelling arguments on the subject, and the book I linked earlier from the author clearly demonstrates that he has thought about this subject more than you have.

Seems to me that the only one who’s not adding anything to the conversation here is you actually. You’ve provided no argument of your own and you’ve failed to engage with anything I said. You just keep repeating how Ted Chiang hasn’t proven his case definitively, which he has not, but you’ve provided zero counter agument of your own.

I mean self reflection in the base sense of how our minds operate, and I don’t think the quality is unique to humans either. It’s almost certain that many animals have a sufficient level of introspection as well. I’d view it more as a gradient rather than a binary switch.

But yeah, in general, I don’t see any reason why a software system could not be self aware or conscious. As long as its able to express these types of patterns within it, then we should assume it would have a similar type of internal experience as well.

Right, an agentic harness provides a feedback loop but we shouldn’t be too quick to assume that of itself is sufficient. A thermostat hooked up to an air conditioner is also a system which exists in a feedback loop, but hardly any rational person would suggest that the climate control system in your house is conscious as a result.

So, while some form of a feedback loop is likely a necessary condition for any form of adaptive behavior, it is insufficient for consciousness on its own, as even a thermostat has a feedback loop without any semblance of inner experience. At a minimum, I’d argue, the system must construct an internal model of its environment from sensory data and must also represent itself as a distinct entity within that model. This can be embodiment or stream of data from a computer system or a network. I would call a system that can distinguish me from not‑me and update its self‑representation through interaction as being functionally self-aware. However, functional self-awareness does not strictly imply subjective experience. A navigation robot that tracks its own coordinates has such a model but it needs not be conscious. Consciousness requires a higher‑order capacity where the system must not only represent itself but also reflect on its own mental states, that is, think about its own thoughts. Having such meta‑cognitive ability, which builds upon functional self‑awareness by adding recursive modeling of internal processes, is what I take to be the minimal sufficient condition for consciousness. I’m partial to the view that raw sensation without second‑order awareness lacks the reflexive quality central to our own subjective experience.

What he’s saying is that it seems rather implausible that we’d skip all the stages of development and jump straight to consciousness which is a reasonable position to hold. His argument is that creating a simulacrum of consciousness is much easier just like faking a moon landing is much easier than actually going to the moon. Nowhere is he saying he would just never believe it no matter what either. He rather says that he hasn’t seen any convincing evidence to suggest that LLMs are a way to create consciousness rather than simply write text in a way that makes humans project consciousness onto the system.

Also, not sure what you’re saying with your second quote. Why wouldn’t anyone ever do the steps of actually creating a proper feedback loop which would have some basis for consciousness?

What they’re really saying is that we need more precise terminology because the terms people throw around right now are incredibly loose, and can mean whatever people want.

His argument is that generating statistically plausible text should not be treated as proof of consciousness. The reason why embodiment tends to be brought up is because it creates a basis for a system to have self awareness. You end up with a feedback loop where the system has to model the world and itself within it, and taking actions feeds back into the system so it has to be able to recognize itself as it interacts with its environment. Ted Chiang wrote a great novella where he discusses this idea https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Lifecycle_of_Software_Objects

Of course, it is possible that you could have some other type of feedback loop that produces self awareness and consciousness, but from what we understand of how LLMs work, it seems highly unlikely that statistical token generation is sufficient for that.

I do agree that he fails to really make the argument for why a disembodies intelligence could not be conscious. In my opinion, the strongest part of the article is at the end where he shows how the whole constitution kabuki theatre that Anthropic came up with clearly wouldn’t afford any protections to an entity that was conscious, so they don’t really believe what they’re saying.

I mean we do have our internal experience which is ultimately what matters.

Personally, I’m partial to the higher-order theory of consciousness which postulates that consciousness constitutes patterns of thought that arise in response to first-order mental states. So, an external stimulus produces a pattern within the neural network which represents a sensation, and then if a pattern arises in response to that pattern, that is an experience of that sensation. Given this framework we could ask whether LLMs experience higher order patterns in response to external stimulus. We would have a clear question to ask which is whether the system can observe itself.

That’s really the elephant in the room. The US is very openly threatening China with war, but also expects China to fuel their war machine.

the most hilarious thing about liberals is that they don’t understand their ideology is right wing

same, I’d love computers to actually start getting cheap