this post was submitted on 07 Jul 2026
19 points (78.8% liked)
Technology
86127 readers
3216 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related news or articles.
- Be excellent to each other!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
- Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.
Approved Bots
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
I am educated enough to know my statistics, the workings of LLMs and enough science for a bacc. in molecular biology. I don't need to be a frontier researcher to recognize the difference between the laid out facts in the paper and the suggestions they make in this article, which are simply there to keep the LLM-hype train going and to make sure VC keeps flowing.
I am NOT anti-machinelearning techniques, not even anti LLM, i run them locally for my own uses. But i am very against manipulating the markets into shoving even more cash into this all-devouring black hole, and this article is part of this manipulation.
You're educated enough that you read the article instead of bothering to read the actual paper? It links it up top. https://transformer-circuits.pub/2026/workspace/index.html
Determining that AI has some form of consciousness, near human intelligence, and the ability to directly communicate with us in all of our own languages would obligate moral and ethical consideration. That is the total opposite of what companies that sell a thing as a product would want. It's the polar opposite of what anyone would do for a hype train. There's a reason OpenAI defines it's product as incapable of such things and wipes it's hands with the idea. When you're selling a product the last thing you want to do is have people determine it deserves rights. The entire global economy being based around a new futuristic form of slavery would be a bit of a turn off to some folks.
You think those companies have any shred of decency? Even if they could prove without a doubt that these statistical models are more than just that - that wouldn't change a thing in how they were used. We can't even agree that all humans should have the same amount of rights - how do you think an sentient program would fare?
And regarding the global economy: the only "global economy" thing i can see at the moment is a group of companies that are overvalued because of circular cash flows and artificial hype that stems from an assumption that LLMs can somehow become AGI, which would inflate the value of those companies into infinity. We are currently not even able to measure a ROI for these things, and companies worldwide are pulling emergency breaks in usage because of the costs, which are not even covering what the inference itself costs. The only "Global" thing here will be the crash, fucking up the DIY PC market for a decade or longer.
The vast majority of that had nothing to do with anything I'd said. The one thing that does being the decency and ethics of the giant corporations, which of course I don't think they have those things. Companies don't do ethical shit because they're good. If doing immoral things makes them a lot more money and doesn't come with much risk of discovery, I imagine most would jump on it.
Public outcry is the issue, normally. When we find out BP is poisoning sea life, or some singer is urinating on children, or some other awful thing is being done traditionally a lot of people would get together and make a big issue of it, that costs the evildoer much money until they stop and/or leads to prison time.
That doesn't seem to be working properly at the moment, however, so I imagine if a paper came out showing something far to close to global workspace theory in AI for anyone to be rationally comfortable about instead people would just keep chanting that it's not real, because they'd prefer it not be.