this post was submitted on 26 Feb 2026
76 points (82.8% liked)

Showerthoughts

40751 readers
1239 users here now

A "Showerthought" is a simple term used to describe the thoughts that pop into your head while you're doing everyday things like taking a shower, driving, or just daydreaming. The most popular seem to be lighthearted clever little truths, hidden in daily life.

Here are some examples to inspire your own showerthoughts:

Rules

  1. All posts must be showerthoughts
  2. The entire showerthought must be in the title
  3. No politics
    • If your topic is in a grey area, please phrase it to emphasize the fascinating aspects, not the dramatic aspects. You can do this by avoiding overly politicized terms such as "capitalism" and "communism". If you must make comparisons, you can say something is different without saying something is better/worse.
    • A good place for politics is c/politicaldiscussion
  4. Posts must be original/unique
  5. Adhere to Lemmy's Code of Conduct and the TOS

If you made it this far, showerthoughts is accepting new mods. This community is generally tame so its not a lot of work, but having a few more mods would help reports get addressed a little sooner.

Whats it like to be a mod? Reports just show up as messages in your Lemmy inbox, and if a different mod has already addressed the report, the message goes away and you never worry about it.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] verdigris@lemmy.ml 2 points 11 hours ago (1 children)

Yeah no only people who don't understand the tech are worried about AGI. There is zero evidence to suggest that we're anywhere on the right path to develop it. The chatbots are not intelligent, they are just a big bag of all the data the trainers could scrape and an algorithm to pull things out of that bag in a way that humans like.

Actual AGI would require us to understand how consciousness works. We don't at all.

[–] Iconoclast@feddit.uk 1 points 11 hours ago (1 children)

Where does it say that AGI needs to be consciouss?

[–] verdigris@lemmy.ml 1 points 11 hours ago (1 children)
[–] Iconoclast@feddit.uk 1 points 10 hours ago (1 children)

No, it doesn't. It's a reasonably safe assumption that something that intelligent is probably also conscious - but it doesn't have to be.

We also don't need to understand consciousness in order to create it in our systems. If consciousness is just an emergent feature of a high enough level of information processing, then it would automatically show up once we build such a system whether we intend it or not.

Hell, in the worst case we might create something we assume isn't conscious - but it is - and it could be suffering immensely.

[–] verdigris@lemmy.ml 1 points 10 hours ago (1 children)

Whole lotta ifs and assumptions. "A high enough level of information processing" is meaningless if we don't have any idea what sort of information processing could lead to consciousness, because it clearly isn't just raw throughput.

AGI definitionally improves itself, which implies awareness of itself and intention. Those are a huge amount of how we define consciousness.

[–] Iconoclast@feddit.uk 1 points 10 hours ago

In neuroscience and philosophy, when people talk about consciousness, they're typically referring to the fact of experience - that it feels like something to be. That experience has qualia.

Nowhere is it written that this is a requirement for general intelligence. It's perfectly conceivable to imagine a system that's more intelligent than any human but where it doesn't feel like anything to be that system. It could even appear conscious without actually being so. Philosophical zombie, so to speak.