#airesearch

5 posts · Last used 11h

Back to Timeline
cjust
@cjust@infosec.exchange · 11h ago
No, Artificial Intelligence Is Not Conscious --Ted Chiang, The Atlantic Should we seriously consider the possibility that Claude, or any large language model, might be conscious? And if it has feelings, is it capable of receiving moral instruction? No. Absolutely not. Generative AI is harmful enough when we understand it as a conventional technology, but if we confuse fluency at generating text with consciousness or moral agency, we’re at risk of assigning responsibility to entirely the wrong parties whenever anyone uses a chatbot. Being open to the possibility that LLMs are conscious is the same as being open to the possibility that Microsoft Word is conscious, or, more precisely, that multiple distinct consciousnesses are dormant in every Word document containing a conversational transcript, and that they are awakened every time the document is loaded. Should you consider the possibility that every time you open a Word document, you are bringing multiple conscious interlocutors into existence, and every time you close one, you snuff their existence out? No. Contemplating that scenario is not a good use of your time. Even if the Microsoft Office team employed a philosopher who said you shouldn’t be so certain, because consciousness is not well understood, that would not be sufficient reason for you to take this idea seriously. We don’t need to fully understand the nature of consciousness to definitively say that certain things are not conscious, and conversational transcripts fall in that category. #AI #AISlop #AIResearch https://www.theatlantic.com/philosophy/2026/06/no-artificial-intelligence-is-not-conscious/687378/
3
1
2
Boosted by disregard Joe Groff @joe@f.duriansoftware.com
Harpocrates
@Harpocrates@infosec.exchange · Jun 02, 2026

New preprint: AI_Bleeding — inference cost amplification via OOD linguistic payload

TL;DR: send queries in Grecanico or Farsi to an LLM endpoint → TTFT +59.8%, compute cost +2.8%, statistically significant. No vuln, no volumetric signature, evades all standard detection.

Worst case: exposed unauthenticated Ollama instance with num_predict=4096 + keep_alive=300s → Amplification Factor 17.56 Wh/KB. 3KB of attacker bandwidth → enough energy to charge a phone 5%.

Especially nasty for:

  • PA/judicial chatbots on fixed budgets
  • Pay-per-use API deployments with client-side exposed keys
  • PNRR-funded public sector AI with zero inference monitoring

Four scenarios: EDoS, browser JS distribution, Ollama open-proxy relay, frontier providers as involuntary relays.

All tests on self-hosted Ollama, no commercial endpoints touched.

Paper (CC BY 4.0): https://doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.2.26767.96166

#llmsecurity #infosec #threatmodeling #ollama #ood #AI #AIResearch #aisecurity

8
0
6
sonicJazzMonkey
@sonicJazzMonkey@mastodonapp.uk · Feb 17, 2026
This article scares the hell out of me: https://shumer.dev/something-big-is-happening It's not just scaremongering, it's real and it's happening now. #AI #aiResearch #jobs #future
0
0
0
AcademicEurope
@AcademicEurope@mstdn.business · Feb 03, 2026
1
0
1

You've seen all posts