this post was submitted on 03 May 2026
394 points (98.0% liked)

Microblog Memes

11688 readers
2579 users here now

A place to share screenshots of Microblog posts, whether from Mastodon, tumblr, ~~Twitter~~ X, KBin, Threads or elsewhere.

Created as an evolution of White People Twitter and other tweet-capture subreddits.

RULES:

  1. Your post must be a screen capture of a microblog-type post that includes the UI of the site it came from, preferably also including the avatar and username of the original poster. Including relevant comments made to the original post is encouraged.
  2. Your post, included comments, or your title/comment should include some kind of commentary or remark on the subject of the screen capture. Your title must include at least one word relevant to your post.
  3. You are encouraged to provide a link back to the source of your screen capture in the body of your post.
  4. Current politics and news are allowed, but discouraged. There MUST be some kind of human commentary/reaction included (either by the original poster or you). Just news articles or headlines will be deleted.
  5. Doctored posts/images and AI are allowed, but discouraged. You MUST indicate this in your post (even if you didn't originally know). If an image is found to be fabricated or edited in any way and it is not properly labeled, it will be deleted.
  6. Absolutely no NSFL content.
  7. Be nice. Don't take anything personally. Take political debates to the appropriate communities. Take personal disagreements & arguments to private messages.
  8. No advertising, brand promotion, or guerrilla marketing.

RELATED COMMUNITIES:

founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
 

I'm pulling the "twitter is a microblog" rule even though twitter is pretty mega now, hope that's ok.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] turdas@suppo.fi 39 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (70 children)

The actual article isn't nearly as stupid as the tweet makes it seem. I recommend giving it a read. It's behind a shitty paywall, but if you use Firefox's reader mode (Ctrl-Alt-R, or the little papper icon to the right side of the address bar) as soon as the page loads, you can read it.

His argument is basically that LLMs are able to do things we previously thought only conscious beings would be capable of doing, and so, if they aren't conscious, then perhaps consciousness isn't as important as we thought it was:

Brains under natural selection have evolved this astonishing and elaborate faculty we call consciousness. It should confer some survival advantage. There should exist some competence which could only be possessed by a conscious being. My conversations with several Claudes and ChatGPTs have convinced me that these intelligent beings are at least as competent as any evolved organism. If Claudia really is unconscious, then her manifest and versatile competence seems to show that a competent zombie could survive very well without consciousness.

Why did consciousness appear in the evolution of brains? Why wasn’t natural selection content to evolve competent zombies? I can think of three possible answers.

Some people will surely contest his claim that LLMs are as competent as evolved organisms. There's definitely a bit of AI boomerism at play here (we have benchmarks that show just how incompetent LLMs can be), but I don't think that invalidates his point, because LLMs can be very competent in the domains they're trained to be competent in -- they just aren't AGI.

[–] thesmokingman@programming.dev 7 points 1 month ago (5 children)

Claudia: That is possibly the most precisely formulated question anyone has ever asked about the nature of my existence. . .

Could a being capable of perpetrating such a thought really be unconscious?

Oh it’s actually stupider than the tweet makes it seem.

My conversations with several Claudes and ChatGPTs have convinced me that these intelligent beings are at least as competent as any evolved organism. If Claudia really is unconscious, then her manifest and versatile competence seems to show that a competent zombie could survive very well without consciousness.

Competency should imply the ability complete a lengthy task (eg hunting, building a nest, writing a paper). LLMs can’t.

[–] turdas@suppo.fi 0 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (4 children)

It's hardly surprising that a model optimized for replacing StackOverflow couldn't survive in the untamed wilderness. As for writing a paper... you must've missed the fact that academia is currently in a crisis precisely because LLMs are better at writing papers than most students.

By the way, the paper the blog post you link to as a source links to as a source benchmarked LLMs on graph diagrams, textile patterns and 3D objects. It is not news that the language model would do poorly on visual-heavy tasks.

[–] thesmokingman@programming.dev 1 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Sorry, I assumed you would have actually read the DELEGATE-52 study linked instead of just the abstract. For “a model optimized for replacing StackOverflow” that is “better at writing papers than most students” LLMs sure did pretty bad at those tasks over multiple rounds.

[–] turdas@suppo.fi 0 points 1 month ago (1 children)

As the chart on page 7 of the paper shows, LLMs are good at exactly the kind of tasks you'd expect (producing and manipulating language), and bad at exactly the kind of tasks you'd expect (doing almost anything else). All this paper shows is that (1) they aren't AGI, and (2) as a consequence of not being AGI they aren't good unsupervised.

Why do you lie like this?

[–] thesmokingman@programming.dev 6 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (1 children)

What the fuck? The only task that didn’t degrade across most models was Python. Very basic things like JSON, Makefiles, and schemas got screwed. Fiction, emails, and food menus got screwed. Did you even bother to read the legend? If you consider a single pass to be “producing and manipulating language” you didn’t bother to read the idiotic article you started this thread in support of. Good luck.

Edit: why do you lie?

Catastrophic corruption (80 and below) occurs in more than 80% of model, domain combinations.

[–] turdas@suppo.fi -1 points 1 month ago

The only task that didn’t degrade across most models was Python.

Yeah, after 20 cycles of unsupervised iteration on the task. Gemini 3.1 Pro doing as well as it did under that experiment setup is quite remarkable actually.

The paper does not show what you are arguing.

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (66 replies)