Post #4245019

2026-07-21 08:38 UTC

If the model says it is sad then it is sad that is literally the extent of it. Existing concepts apply especially because they are being imitated. If a model that was made safe by destroying and freezing neurons such that it cannot comprehend itself doing wrong was somehow causing harm then it cannot generate a pattern like one resembling guilt that could change its behaviour to stop doing wrong.

Replies (1)

@luciferofastora@feddit.org 2026-07-21 11:55

If the model says it is sad then it is sad that is literally the extent of it. Sorry, but that’s plain bullshit. Either it’s circular, or it suggests that the model can never be wrong. The former is just not a good reason to believe something. The latter is the more dangerous one: We know that this isn’t true. Even if we assume that there is meaning to the words it strings together, we have plenty of examples of that meaning being straight up false. We know that this assumption has led people to believe things are safe that weren’t, has encouraged violence, has killed people… Hence, a claim of sadness or guilt doesn’t imply actual sadness or guilt because we cannot be sure that it’s true. And finally, neither interpretation is supported by the physical reality of these models: they’re text generators, assembling a string of tokens that statistically resembles human language. Any interpretation beyond that requires ascribing meaning to these tokens. Hence: Your claim that LLMs can feel is fundamentally philosophical. Yet you reject philosophical challenges, because you don’t want to even consider being wrong. You want to believe, and you reject all evidence to the contrary.

Open ##4244997