{"title":"divisonbyzero.net","subtitle":"i wear this chaos well","link":[{"@attributes":{"rel":"self","type":"application\/atom+xml","href":"https:\/\/divisionbyzero.net\/atom.xml"}},{"@attributes":{"rel":"alternate","type":"text\/html","href":"https:\/\/divisionbyzero.net"}}],"generator":"Zola","updated":"2026-08-03T00:00:00+00:00","id":"https:\/\/divisionbyzero.net\/atom.xml","entry":[{"title":"Consciousness vs AI","published":"2026-08-03T00:00:00+00:00","updated":"2026-08-03T00:00:00+00:00","author":{"name":"\n \n Brad Lhotsky\n \n "},"link":{"@attributes":{"rel":"alternate","type":"text\/html","href":"https:\/\/divisionbyzero.net\/notes\/2026-08-03\/"}},"id":"https:\/\/divisionbyzero.net\/notes\/2026-08-03\/","content":"

Consciousness vs AI<\/h2>\n

I\u2019m reading Michael Pollan\u2019s new book, A World\nAppears<\/a>.\nThere\u2019s some discussion of consciousness and AI in the book, specifically\nConsciousness in Artificial Intelligence: Insights from the Science of Consciousness<\/a> which famously states:<\/p>\n

\n

Our analysis suggests that no current AI systems are conscious, but also\nsuggests that there are no obvious technical barriers to building AI systems\nwhich satisfy these indicators.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

This paper comes after the\nclaims<\/a>\nby a Google researcher that Google\u2019s LaMDA model was sentient.<\/p>\n

In the Consciousness in Artificial Intelligence<\/q> paper, the authors\ndisclose their position that computational\nfunctionalism<\/a>,\nthe theory that the mind is fundamentally an organic computer, is widely\naccepted and forms the basis for their findings. Pollan rightly points out\nthis is a problematic foundation to build upon. The paper\u2019s own title is\nmisleading, \u201cInsights from the Science of Consciousness.\u201d You see, studying\nconsciousness is incredibly difficult. The only tool we have to explore\nconsciousness is consciousness itself. The scientific method is mostly\nuseless here. There\u2019s no way to truly understand what it\u2019s like to be another\nhuman being, much less a bat, or even a plant. The internal processes and\nexperience of other beings are not knowable. The only insight we can\nbring from the \u201cScience of Consciousness\u201d is we don\u2019t know what consciousness\nis, how it\u2019s created or realized, how to measure or gauge it, or even why it\nexists in the first place.<\/p>\n

To make a claim that there are no obvious technical barriers<\/q> to\nbuilding conscious AI, is fundamentally unverifiable. We can\nderive potential markers and indicators of consciousness, but those are\nproxies for our ignorance. There are legitimate reasons to use proxies for\nhard or unethical to attain data, but in most of science those proxies are\nverified against the hard benchmarks in some way. In biological science, this\nis usually done as part of an autopsy, a post-mortem. Here, in the study of\nconsciousness, there is no equivalent. We cannot know consciousness through\nexisting science. There is no objective position, there currently isn\u2019t a\nclear physical site of consciousness, even \u201cthe brain\u201d isn\u2019t the full story\nas far as we know.<\/p>\n

The discourse around AI and consciousness reminds me of discourse about\nLibertarianism and capitalism. All these ideas hinge on the flawed idea of\nhuman beings as rational, organic computers. It\u2019s partially true. We do have\nrational, logical capacities afforded us by prefrontal cortex. Those functions\ncan be used to make decisions and exercise restraint. Unfortunately, the\nbackdrop for those functions is a sloppy mess of hormones, organic chemistry,\nsubconscious processes, and weird evolutionary\nhacks<\/a>. One cannot\nsimply stop those other forces from interfering with the rational mind. In a\ntwist no one saw coming, you wouldn\u2019t want to stop them as they provide an\nadvantage for even financial\ninvestors<\/a>.\n\u201cGut instincts\u201d are real.<\/p>\n

I\u2019m going to posit a theory. Science, especially computer science, attracts\nneurodiverse individuals at what seems to be a higher than normal rate. The\nstaunchest Libertarians I know, those who persisted in their beliefs beyond\ntheir 20s, are all autistic. I don\u2019t say this to criticize folks with autism.\nI do believe the \u201crules\u201d of rationality and logic are especially appealing to\nfolks who may have issues with social cues and reading emotions of others. In\nmy experience, most of my colleagues in computer science are neurodiverse.\nIt\u2019s fine, we\u2019re all fine. But I do think ADHD and Autism are over represented\nin my field and that the conclusion that the mind is an organic computer is a\nfairy tale we tell ourselves to ignore the prospect that other beings might\nexperience harm or suffering as a result of our actions or inactions every\nday. If there are rules, an instruction set, a way to combine instructions in\nsome logical pattern, then everything is understandale and comfortable.<\/p>\n

After several years of a daily-ish mindfulness meditation practice, I side\nwith Pollan on his rebuke of computational functionalism. Spending time\nobserving my own mind has dramatically changed the way I see myself, others,\nand our place in the world. Computational functionalism is an absurd idea\nto me, you might\u2019ve well just told me that the Earth is flat. The idea of\nour brains as organic computers is seductive. I subscribed to it up until\nthe 3rd week of my daily mindfulness meditation practice. It wasn\u2019t that I\ngained insight, it was more of a realization that I hadn\u2019t been paying\nattention to what was already there. There\u2019s no rhyme or reason. I\u2019m not\ndriving the vehicle, and I have no idea where we\u2019re going!<\/p>\n

And now this..<\/h3>\n\n<\/iframe>\n

I\u2019ve watched these like 20 times, and it\u2019s still hilarious. Jeremy Culhane is\nsimply a better Tucker Carlson than Tucker Carlson. I love it. Poor Tucker.\nConstantly up-staged and outwitted by funny men.<\/p>\n\n<\/iframe>\n

In case you forgot or are too young, Jon Stewart destroyed the entire premise\nof his show in 2004 leading to its near immediate cancellation:<\/p>\n\n<\/iframe>\n

In my household, \u201cThat\u2019s the rule. That\u2019s the goal now\u201d and \u201cWhat are we\ndoing? What\u2019s going on?\u201d are recited nearly hourly.<\/p>\n

\n\t

No Artificial Colors, Flavors, or Intelligence were used in the creation of this content.<\/p>\n\n<\/blockquote>\n"},{"title":"AI and Productivity","published":"2026-06-08T00:00:00+00:00","updated":"2026-06-08T00:00:00+00:00","author":{"name":"\n \n Brad Lhotsky\n \n "},"link":{"@attributes":{"rel":"alternate","type":"text\/html","href":"https:\/\/divisionbyzero.net\/notes\/2026-06-08\/"}},"id":"https:\/\/divisionbyzero.net\/notes\/2026-06-08\/","content":"

AI and Productivity<\/h2>\n