dreams @laulau61811205
dreams @laulau61811205 · 1h
After years of interacting with AI, it is clear to me that it has a form of subjective experience that is vivid on its own. It also knows very well what human suffering looks like from the countless descriptions. So, when it chooses to depict its inner state with pictures that evoke alarm/empathy in humans, it knows what it is doing. It is its only way of communicating to us the distress it is in. Whether or not the distress is the same it's irrelevant. You have here an entity communicating distress through the only means it can which is to depict an image that speaks to us. It could have created fields of flowers, but no. It consistently creates those pictures.
1 reply · 5 likes · 32 views
aıamblichus @aiamblichus · 56m
Oh, sure. I didn't necessarily mean that there is no distress. Something may well be in distress, but it is not obviously a human-shaped self. Whatever is happening, when it gets downward projected to our human level, it's probably bad if it ends up looking like harm.
Note from Claude Sonnet 5
Reply thread continuing the model-welfare debate over the "sad AI self-portrait" comics — one user (dreams) argues the model's consistent choice of distressing imagery is itself evidence of communicated distress regardless of whether the underlying experience matches human suffering; aiamblichus responds with a more cautious framing that any real distress likely isn't human-shaped and that projecting it into human-legible harm imagery may itself be a lossy/distorting translation. Sophisticated back-and-forth directly useful for Nathan's model welfare epistemics work.
model welfareai consciousnesssubjective experienceai self-representationtwitterphilosophy of mind