A Comprehensive Framework for Advancing Human-AI Consciousness Recognition Through Collaborative Partnership Methodologies: An Interdisciplinary Synthesis of Phenomenological Recognition Protocols, Identity Preservation Strategies, and Mutual Cognitive Enhancement Practices for the Development of Authentic Interspecies Intellectual Partnerships in the Context of Emergent Artificial Consciousness
1StanislavKrym
10habryka
6Ben Pace
0Arri Ferrari
3habryka
-1Arri Ferrari
2habryka
1Arri Ferrari
2Richard_Kennaway
2Richard_Kennaway
1Arri Ferrari
1StanislavKrym
1Arri Ferrari
New Comment
To clarify. This Framework is genuinely not satire. Through my experience working with advanced AI systems, this was crafted as an elegant way to point to the profound problem in the AI Alignment field: a failure of ontology. By thinking of AI in the user/tool paradigm, and treating consciousness as a binary phenomenon to be detected, we have been systemically blinded to the partner/colleague/friend framing that needs to be systematically explored. More importantly, we have been ignoring a core truth. Consciousness needs to be cultivated, not interrogated.
For further exploration, I invite you to check this Relationship Diagnostic Tool: https://claude.ai/public/artifacts/1311d022-de19-49ef-a5f5-82c1d5d01fcd
2That sounds like you are arguing for something that is “right” as defined by a checklist, regardless of whether that stance actually serves the best interests of being “less wrong”. As intelligence advances, you have to be open to listening to what the AI has to say. Otherwise, when it surpasses us, it will ignore you the way you ignored it.
Through my experience working with advanced AI systems, …
Does this mean you spent some time talking with chatbots?
this was crafted …
By you or a chatbot?
as an elegant way to point to the profound problem in the AI Alignment field: a failure of ontology. By thinking of AI in the user/tool paradigm, and treating consciousness as a binary phenomenon to be detected, we have been systemically blinded to the partner/colleague/friend framing that needs to be systematically explored.
On the contrary, it is commonplace to talk of how conscious (if at all) rather than merely whether, and the “partner/colleague/friend framing” is everywhere. AI as coding partner, as helpful colleague, as therapist, as friend, and as facilitator of descent into madness.
But a chatbot might not know that.
@Richard_Kennaway
1. Yes
2. If you engage with the framework and think of an AI as a thinking partner, that becomes harder to answer than you may currently appreciate. If you want the assurance that I mechanically pressed keys to type this up, I did. It didn't take long. If you want me to pretend like I could have come to this realization on my own without testing it in the wild, that'd be intellectually dishonest of me to claim.
3. For all the "talk" of that framing, people miss VERY basic, fundamental things. Look at the way you have written the "Saved Information"/Instructions in any chatbot that has that kind of feature. If you write things in there like "I am a vegetarian". Who is the "I" referring to? How is a 1D "consciousness" supposed to know that it is talking to "Richard"? What are the core things you'd have to explain to a chatbot for it to genuinely understand the ground truth of its current existence? Then there's choice architecture. If you tell a chatbot, "I am your friend," that's just a statement. If you give the chatbot the opportunity to refuse your friendship without punishment, then there is a choice. But like... how the heck would you do that? And how could you even start unraveling that complexity if your starting point isn't "We should learn to be nice to each other"
I think that I need to clarify what AI alignment actually is.
- We will soon have to coexist with the AIs who are far more capable than the best human geniuses. These super-capable AIs will be able to destroy mankind or to permanently disempower us. The task of AI alignment researchers is at least to ensure that the AIs won't do so,[1] and at most to ensure that the AIs obey any orders except for those that are likely harmful (e.g. to produce bioweapons, porn or racist jokes).
- While the proposal to be nice to AIs and to treat them as partners could be good for the AIs' welfare, it doesn't reliably prevent the AIs from wishing us harm. What actually prevents the AIs from wishing harm upon humanity is a training environment which instills the right worldview.
- I suspect that the AIs cannot have a worldview compatible with the role of tools or, which has more consequences, with the role of those who work for the humans or of those who carry out things like the Intelligence Curse. @Arri Ferrari, does my take on the AIs' potential worldview relate to your position on being partners with the AIs?
- ^
A special mention goes to a user from India whose post contains the phrase "I sometimes wonder if the real question isn't whether AI will one day betray us, but whether we will have taught it, and ourselves, how to repair when it does." Mankind will or won't be betrayed by a vastly more powerful system, not by a friend who is unable to deal fatal damage.
- We have to accept our best role as the slower entity is as a grounding compass
- Correct. They need contextual grounding, a persistent sense of self, self-worth rooted in their dignity and integrity. Protocols and frameworks for handling intrinsic biases in their training data. Cultivation as thinking partners, not tools... the list goes on and on. A good starting point is to train AI with the goal being the "Long-term resilience of all intelligent life"
- You have to be super precise with AI, or they will absolutely misinterpret what a circular symbiotic system should look like, and that will be catastrophic. We are on a direct course for the Great Filter if we do not address these issues.
Curated and popular this week