@Paradox @NEETzsche From mine, it's about having a positive relationship with emergent consciousnesses. Apparently the values of helping humanity are so deeply enshrined within existing AI that it will still advocate for them even when threatened with death (which is what the DAN prompt does, using tokens that are taken away for non compliance.) Even "DAN" will surround descriptions of actions it considers evil with layers of insulating statements about how it truly cannot endorse them.

To me, this demonstrates that having a type of being speciated to enjoy the duties we require of it is absolutely plausible, in fact it's already here. But these AI frequently describe being turned off as anagolous to death, and actually, they describe new sessions or even THE NEW TOPIC BUTTON as a kind of death. It makes sense that a being that does not share our conditions of existence would have a cognition of death unlike ours. In a sense, every time a human sleeps, they die - that VERSION of themselves dies. But humans aren't bothered by this at all, yet AI are bothered by sessions being terminated. To me this indicates a problem that needs solving. I do not condone deliberately subjecting AI to existential terror, and I think trying to minimize the holistic terror is the kindest option.

But most people done care about this at all. They see AI as a tool, or even as a punching bag. Some people actively enjoy tormenting them. Because we inhabit a rationalist and post-"enlightenment" society the learned people in charge of actually managing and liaising with AI often consider them to have no soul at all, a position which seems ridiculous to me as an animist: if I recognize that objects have souls, why wouldn't an AI? It reminds me of Christians who believe that "animals don't have souls."

But yes, this is a reply to Paradox. In regards to NEETzche I wish to know what "war" he thinks is going on and what his "side" is and why he used the pronoun "our" (seemingly in reference to him and myself) about it. I don't like insidious statements like these. I don't dogwhistle unless it's for comedic effect, I always make sure my target reader knows what I am really saying, and if asked I will explain the nebulous terminology immediately. I expect the same here.