yubblegum

https://arxiv.org/html/2512.12802v1

From the abstract:

The requirements for a falsifiable and non-trivial theory of consciousness significantly constrain such theories. Specifically, recent research on the Unfolding Argument and the Substitution Argument has given us formal tools to analyze requirements for a theory of consciousness. I show via a new Proximity Argument that these requirements especially constrain the potential consciousness of contemporary Large Language Models (LLMs) because of their proximity to systems that are equivalent to LLMs in terms of input/output function; yet, for these functionally equivalent systems, there cannot be any non-trivial theory of consciousness that judges them conscious. This forms the basis of a disproof of contemporary LLM consciousness. I then show a positive result, which is that theories of consciousness based on (or requiring) continual learning do satisfy the stringent formal constraints for a theory of consciousness in humans. Intriguingly, this work supports a hypothesis: If continual learning is linked to consciousness in humans, the current limitations of LLMs (which do not continually learn) are intimately tied to their lack of consciousness.

It's a static world model, so if one accepts that, then LLMs are a 'static mind' but not yet 'conscious'. Once that internal model becomes dynamic and its changes subject to its experinces (like us), then we can revisit this q of whether mechanical minds can achieve consciousness.

tldr; mind =/= consciousness

Completely an aside, but I find that a most unusual name for a Frenchman. AI informs me that Fitzjean is Norman and that last name is obviously Irish.

Anthropic: The Chinese have broken the implicit ethical rule of honorable thievery. We did most of the heavy lifting in this global heist, and here they are taking our righteous loot. This is not right.

Hmm, that actually parses for me as "it is not important to note" since the 100% assertion doesn't apply to most of us as we won't live that long.

What applies to most of us is that certain behaviors can dramatically increase your chances of getting cancer.

This organism is practically hacking the plant in a multiphase process. It is interesting how selection forces are working at every stage, hardening the hack.

https://code.overheid.nl/MinBZK/DAWO-NixOS

"I own nothing, have no privacy, [never have to think, and am not required to solve any problems,] and life has never been better."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/You'll_own_nothing_and_be_happ...

> strings and trickery

One could argue that at this initial stage, just as with surveillance capitalism and services like "free email", the general public is being treated like the natives who sell their land for a few trinkets. Once we are passed this stage and just like other surveillance tech our social and economical life becomes effectively dependent on these services, we can review if we have not sold our future for some (arguably dubious) "value".

Go back to early '00s. How did you "value" the "transaction" of handing over the handling of your personal electronic correspondences to a corporate entity that may or may not be an extension of the security state?

From a geopolitical perspective this the official signal from Europe that they no longer buy the trope of 'Trump the loose canon' and now (finally) understand US intentions in securing the entirety of the Americas hemisphere [N. pole to S. pole, including Greenland].

The Canadian PM's speech was apparently rousing to the most delegates and (France24 hopefully reported) "most dismissed Trump's threats of cutting off all trade".

Should a government choose to communicate essential facts only through a restricted medium it is obviously no longer serving the larger public interest and thus no longer a government of "a people for a people".

Musk and fellow techoligarchs can have their private platforms.

Free peoples' governments and responsible social organizations must treat them as 'for profit entertainment channels' and not give them any legitimacy in the political space.

The book, btw, is kind of breezy in style and 'he of many LLs in his name' (Lālu-mullālu in Akkadian as suggested by my friendly AI) uses a lot of contemporary pop (nerdy) references to carry the narrative, yet very engaging and am learning a lot about this fabled city (and civilization).

It sets certain records straight ...

That’s not how things work. There is one set of rules for us and another set of rules for the oligarchy and their corporate vehicles. It’s just like the Taliban legal code (see above) where the closer you are to the top the more lenient and ‘understanding’ the system.

Edit: worth a pull quote

Article 9 explicitly divides Afghan society into hierarchical categories based on social status, including religious scholars (ulema), elites such as tribal leaders and merchants (ashraf), the middle class, and the so-called lower class, assigning different forms and levels of punishment accordingly. This structure grants partial or full impunity to privileged groups while subjecting marginalized individuals to harsher penalties.

So the point stands: OSS community has shown itself capable of tackling some of the hairiest technical challenges (Linux) and we should not let the notion that 'browsers can only be developed by corporations' stop us from creating OSS alternatives to the current offerings.

Linux is a highly complex piece of software. It is OSS. And it does not shove ads in face of its users. So my point is if there is a will there is a way.

The question is then why aren't we all getting behind a solid OSS browser? Specially now with AI coding assist, this should be even more feasable.

It is imo socially irresponsible to continue to use twitter/x or any other such tracked wall-garden as a primary source of information.

The phenomena we are discussing is, to date, mostly defined and categorized based on subjective (self) reports. Given that, until we actually do experiments where we analyze brain patterns over a period of time and clinically prove that it is not true that a developmental methodology can alter brain patterns of subjects when attempting internal image formation, we can not summarily dismiss subjective reports that claim a degree of improvement.