164

Just to make it clear: I do not believe this and I am convinced good old human greed is what's really driving the ai and data-center insanity. Also, LLMs are not and will never become AGI.

Having said that: if an artificial super-intelligence were to emerge, building more data-centers could well be one of it's primary goals. Since it wouln't be concerned with consequences for the environment or humanity, it could pursue this at any cost, with only speed and scale in mind. Convincing financial markets and business elites of the necessity of such a buildout would be the ideal way of achieving results. In this scenario, fighting this buildout by any means would be the only sensible response and of utmost importance.

It's a somewhat funny, somewhat depressing thought for me and I literally had it in the shower. Surely I can't be the first to come up with this, but I also can't remember having read it before.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] daannii@lemmy.world 1 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

Okay but my point was you would say someone has consciousness when they are without any higher brain function and lacking a cortex.

And, someone with their higher cortex but a damaged cerebellum, who is no longer able to track time, would not be conscious, by your definition.

I mean if that's your definition then you are welcome to it.

I don't know of any theories of consciousness that consider the tracking of time to be what counts. 🤷. Because of the two examples I give.

[-] impairedimperator@lemmy.zip 2 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

Yep.

Like I said at the beginning. My first definition of consciousness is "a word meaningless enough to mean what you want, while still sounding like a serious person having a serious conversation".

Here is a list of your mistakes:

  1. you never provided a competing definition of consciousness, meaning I set the terms of the debate.
  2. you seem to have realized (1), and instead of correcting it you started answering arguments you invented on my behalf, instead of responding to the arguments I made.
  3. you are now trying to fix (1), but in a roundabout way involving (2), which makes you look unserious.
  4. you ignored my first definition, in which I made it pretty clear I didn't take you very seriously at all to begin with. Still don't, much like I don't take anyone seriously when they discuss consciousness.

On the other hand, you don't seem stupid. Try joining a debate club at the local college, learn some fundamentals of rhetoric, and things will go much better for you in the future.

Edit: theories of consciousness are just as BS as theories of teapots orbiting Uranus, as they are unfalsifiable without arbitrary constraints.

Edit2: also, I should point out that having defined consciousness as 'awareness of the passage of time' after mentioning stimulus-response, I was pretty clearly setting up an argument that literally everything is conscious. That's why you should not have let me define the terms, and brought your own definition that I would have had to argue against.

[-] daannii@lemmy.world 1 points 16 hours ago

There are definitions that actually fit with modern neuroscience and can be evaluated.

Your choice to choose a definition that doesn't align with modern knowledge is not evidence that it's undefinable.

The two most popular ones are a sense of self as separate from the environment.

Another is the ability to be able to predict the environment and plan or adjust plans accordingly.

Another is sensory binding to experience a unified perception.

All of these can be evaluated objectively and investigated for mechanisms. They all have a ton of research on them.

Your definition was something you came up with on the fly to see what I would say. And that's fine.

But I explained why this definition is flawed.

Even so. It can also be objectively measured and has been extensively researched as to its mechanisms.

So even if that was what consciousness is, we do have theories and research , at present, to explain how it works.

this post was submitted on 30 Jul 2026
164 points (96.1% liked)

Showerthoughts

43156 readers
141 users here now

A "Showerthought" is a simple term used to describe the thoughts that pop into your head while you're doing everyday things like taking a shower, driving, or just daydreaming. The most popular seem to be lighthearted clever little truths, hidden in daily life.

Here are some examples to inspire your own showerthoughts:

Rules

  1. All posts must be showerthoughts
  2. The entire showerthought must be in the title
  3. No politics
    • If your topic is in a grey area, please phrase it to emphasize the fascinating aspects, not the dramatic aspects. You can do this by avoiding overly politicized terms such as "capitalism" and "communism". If you must make comparisons, you can say something is different without saying something is better/worse.
    • A good place for politics is c/politicaldiscussion
  4. Posts must be original/unique
  5. Adhere to Lemmy's Code of Conduct and the TOS

If you made it this far, showerthoughts is accepting new mods. This community is generally tame so its not a lot of work, but having a few more mods would help reports get addressed a little sooner.

Whats it like to be a mod? Reports just show up as messages in your Lemmy inbox, and if a different mod has already addressed the report, the message goes away and you never worry about it.

founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS