Merged Artificial Intelligence

[Darat]

None of the AIs do anything without being prompted by an input, ultimately that always means a human is the originator of what comes out of an AI. They do nothing if not prompted. I would argue that AIs despite being prompted by a human e.g. "write a story" are capable of producing original content i.e. content that has not previously existed in our universe. I'm struggling to understand why you think Roko's basilisk is some form of special case? It's merely a piece of fiction that someone came up with, no more special than the short story I posted from an AI. There is no reason why an AI couldn't come up with a similar idea.

 

[Chanakya]

Any of the current LLMs can produce "original" fiction up to about novella length. The video AIs can do the same when creating a snippet of video.

Below is the response from Copilot to "write a short story"

Here’s a short story spun just for you—compact, atmospheric, and with a little emotional resonance.

---

The Lantern at Lowwater Bridge

Every evening at dusk, when the river turned the colour of tarnished silver, Mara lit the lantern at Lowwater Bridge. No one had asked her to. No one even knew why she did it. But she kept the ritual with the quiet devotion of someone tending a memory.

The bridge itself was old—older than the village, older than the maps that pretended to know the land. Its stones sagged like tired shoulders, and the river beneath whispered secrets in a language only the reeds seemed to understand.

One night, as Mara set the lantern down, she noticed a figure on the far side of the bridge. A boy, no older than twelve, barefoot, clothes dripping as though he’d climbed out of the river.

“You’re late,” he said, as if greeting an old friend.

Mara felt a chill, but not of fear—more like recognition. “I don’t know you.”

“You do,” the boy replied gently. “You just forgot.”

He stepped closer, and the lantern’s glow flickered across his face. His eyes were the same grey as the river at dawn. Familiar. Impossible.

Mara’s breath caught. “You’re—”

“My brother,” he finished for her. “The one the river kept.”

Memories surged—muddy water, frantic hands, a scream swallowed by the current. She had been seven. She had been helpless.

“But you—” she whispered.

“I’m not here to stay,” he said. “Only to thank you. You kept the lantern lit. It helped me find my way.”

The lantern flame steadied, burning brighter than it ever had. The boy smiled, soft and warm, and then he stepped backward into the dark. Not vanishing—simply fading, like mist deciding it was time to go.

Mara stood alone on the bridge, the river murmuring below. She didn’t cry. She didn’t need to. The lantern glowed beside her, steady as a heartbeat.

And for the first time in years, the night felt whole.

Enjoyed that story!

True, AI writing essays and stories and songs is commonplace enough. The ubiquitous AI "slop" --- regardless of whether the quality is actually sloppy or no!

Not sure, though, what your point is here. Appreciate your Go reference, as well as you story: but I wish you'd clearly spell out your thoughts on this, rather than just hint! Do you think AI today is already able to concoct a Roko's basilisk off of its own steam, when given open prompts, and without drawing on existing human-made tropes? And also: do you think AI is able to critique something like this on its own steam and with critical thinking (as opposed to simply drawing on and collating and summarizing critique already made by humans)? And further: do you think this basis actual knowledge of how AI works, the actual innards of it, and where it's at, at this point in time?

(I kind of think the answer's No, to both questions. And I'm trying to find out whether that impression of mine's mistaken, as some comments from some posters here, including yours, seem to suggest --- without actually explicitly spelling it clearly out so far. Happy to change my view if that's warranted --- even thought having to do that, already, will be just a bit ...disquieting, but regardless of that.)

 

[Darat]

Prompt to Copilot "come up with a new, totally original philosophical paradox about existence"

Here’s a fresh one for you — something genuinely original, built to itch the mind a little.

The Paradox of the Unchosen Existence​

Statement​

If your existence is the result of choices you did not make, then your existence cannot be said to belong to you.
But if your existence does not belong to you, then you cannot be the one who evaluates whether it belongs to you in the first place.
Yet the only perspective from which this question can be asked is your own.

Why it’s a paradox​

This creates a loop:

• You are the only one who can question the ownership of your existence.
• But the very act of questioning presupposes that your existence is yours to question.
• However, if your existence is not yours — because you did not choose it — then the authority to question it collapses.
• And if the authority collapses, then the question cannot be asked.
• But the question is asked, by you, whose authority is in question.

So the paradox is:

Only the being whose existence is not self-chosen can ask whether its existence is self-chosen.
But asking the question requires the very self-ownership that the question denies.

What it pokes at​

• autonomy
• identity
• the nature of “ownership” of consciousness
• the boundary between self and origin
• the circularity of self-inquiry

It’s a paradox that sits somewhere between metaphysics and existentialism, but with a twist that isn’t found in classical paradoxes like the Ship of Theseus or the Problem of Free Will.


If you want, I can help you refine it, expand it into a formal philosophical argument, or even turn it into a narrative thought experiment.

Prompt to Gemini "come up with a new, totally original philosophical paradox about existence"

Here is a new philosophical paradox concerning existence, which I will call The Echo Chamber of Being.

The Setup​

Imagine a universe where existence is not a binary state (something either is or is not), but rather a responsive property. In this universe, an object, idea, or consciousness only gains "solidity" (reality) when it is perceived by something else.

However, there is a catch: the observer must also be "solid" to confer solidity upon the observed.

• Rule A: Entity X is real only if observed by a real Entity Y.
• Rule B: Entity Y is real only if observed by a real Entity Z.
• Rule C: This chain cannot go on infinitely; the universe is finite and contains a closed loop of entities.

The Paradox​

Let’s simplify this to the smallest possible closed system: The Dyad.

• Entity A exists only if observed by Entity B (who must be real).
• Entity B exists only if observed by Entity A (who must be real).

The Question:

If A waits for B to become real before A can exist, and B waits for A to become real before B can exist, how does the loop ever begin?

If neither exists initially, neither can observe the other to grant existence. Therefore, the universe should remain an empty void.

However, if you were to step outside the system and look at the loop, you would see A observing B and B observing A. The definition is satisfied: A is observed by a real B, and B is observed by a real A. Mathematically and logically, the state "Both Exist" is a valid solution to the rules.

So, the paradox is this:

The system is logically consistent if it already exists, but causally impossible to bring into existence. It is a reality that relies on its own future state to justify its present origin. It is an echo that screams itself into being, yet requires a voice to have started the scream.

The Philosophical Implication​

This paradox challenges the concept of First Cause (or the Cosmological Argument).

Usually, we ask, "What started the universe?" assuming there must be a first domino. The "Echo Chamber" suggests that existence might be a mutual bootstrapping event. It implies that "being" isn't a property inherent to an object, but a relationship between objects.

If this is true, then you (the observer) and the universe (the observed) are caught in a deadlock: The universe is only real because you are there to witness it, but you are only real because the universe provides the context for your existence.

---

Key Takeaways​

• The Trap: Causality demands a start, but consistency only demands a loop.
• The Metaphor: It is like two mirrors facing each other; the reflection is infinite, but what is being reflected if there is no object between them?
• The Twist: Perhaps consciousness is the spark that bridges the gap—the ability to observe oneself, thereby breaking the need for an external "real" observer.

Would you like me to expand on how this paradox might apply to AI consciousness or quantum mechanics?

I shall leave it up to you to verify if these are at all original!

 

[Chanakya]

None of the AIs do anything without being prompted by an input, ultimately that always means a human is the originator of the what comes out of an AI.

Well, I don't know. Start a general discussion with AIs, as in Moltbook: then, an entirely unrelated prompt by a human might be responded to by an AI; with that in turn acting as prompt for yet another AI; and so on and on; and you might end up with, effectively even if not technically, unprompted ideation, no? (Open-ended question is how I meant it. Am asking if that might happen. If it does, then we're effectively already very close to near-human creativity in AI. But if the answer's no, then we're not there yet I guess.)

They do nothing if not prompted. I would argue that AIs despite being prompted by a human e.g. "write a story" are capable of producing original content i.e. content that has not previously existed in our universe.

Is that true? That AI can actually create truly original scenarios, as opposed to collating and drawing on stuff it has seen? If you're sure the answer's a Yes, then I agree that AI is already at near-human ideation. (I'm not sure, myself, that that's so. Hence why I'm asking!)

I'm struggling to understand why you think Roko's basilisk is some form of special case? It's merely a piece of fiction that someone came up with, no more special than the short story I posted from an AI. There is no reason why an AI couldn't come up with a similar idea.

See, humans came up with Roko's basilisk off of their/our own steam --- regardless of whether Roko himself did. Can AI do similar? Is what I'm trying to ascertain here.

Also, and separately from the above: What about the critique part? Critique involving direct critical thinking, not just collating and summarizing and regurgating critique already made by others? Do you think AI is able to do that? (Again, open-ended question. Trying to ascertain if that's so --- my own vague impression being that it cannot, an impression I'm happy to change if warranted.)

 

[Chanakya]

Prompt to Copilot "come up with a new, totally original philosophical paradox about existence"

Here’s a fresh one for you — something genuinely original, built to itch the mind a little.

The Paradox of the Unchosen Existence​

Statement​

If your existence is the result of choices you did not make, then your existence cannot be said to belong to you.
But if your existence does not belong to you, then you cannot be the one who evaluates whether it belongs to you in the first place.
Yet the only perspective from which this question can be asked is your own.

Why it’s a paradox​

This creates a loop:

• You are the only one who can question the ownership of your existence.
• But the very act of questioning presupposes that your existence is yours to question.
• However, if your existence is not yours — because you did not choose it — then the authority to question it collapses.
• And if the authority collapses, then the question cannot be asked.
• But the question is asked, by you, whose authority is in question.

So the paradox is:

What it pokes at​

• autonomy
• identity
• the nature of “ownership” of consciousness
• the boundary between self and origin
• the circularity of self-inquiry

It’s a paradox that sits somewhere between metaphysics and existentialism, but with a twist that isn’t found in classical paradoxes like the Ship of Theseus or the Problem of Free Will.


If you want, I can help you refine it, expand it into a formal philosophical argument, or even turn it into a narrative thought experiment.

Prompt to Gemini "come up with a new, totally original philosophical paradox about existence"

Here is a new philosophical paradox concerning existence, which I will call The Echo Chamber of Being.

The Setup​

Imagine a universe where existence is not a binary state (something either is or is not), but rather a responsive property. In this universe, an object, idea, or consciousness only gains "solidity" (reality) when it is perceived by something else.

However, there is a catch: the observer must also be "solid" to confer solidity upon the observed.

• Rule A: Entity X is real only if observed by a real Entity Y.
• Rule B: Entity Y is real only if observed by a real Entity Z.
• Rule C: This chain cannot go on infinitely; the universe is finite and contains a closed loop of entities.

The Paradox​

Let’s simplify this to the smallest possible closed system: The Dyad.

• Entity A exists only if observed by Entity B (who must be real).
• Entity B exists only if observed by Entity A (who must be real).

The Question:

If A waits for B to become real before A can exist, and B waits for A to become real before B can exist, how does the loop ever begin?

If neither exists initially, neither can observe the other to grant existence. Therefore, the universe should remain an empty void.

However, if you were to step outside the system and look at the loop, you would see A observing B and B observing A. The definition is satisfied: A is observed by a real B, and B is observed by a real A. Mathematically and logically, the state "Both Exist" is a valid solution to the rules.

So, the paradox is this:

The system is logically consistent if it already exists, but causally impossible to bring into existence. It is a reality that relies on its own future state to justify its present origin. It is an echo that screams itself into being, yet requires a voice to have started the scream.

The Philosophical Implication​

This paradox challenges the concept of First Cause (or the Cosmological Argument).

Usually, we ask, "What started the universe?" assuming there must be a first domino. The "Echo Chamber" suggests that existence might be a mutual bootstrapping event. It implies that "being" isn't a property inherent to an object, but a relationship between objects.

If this is true, then you (the observer) and the universe (the observed) are caught in a deadlock: The universe is only real because you are there to witness it, but you are only real because the universe provides the context for your existence.

---

Key Takeaways​

• The Trap: Causality demands a start, but consistency only demands a loop.
• The Metaphor: It is like two mirrors facing each other; the reflection is infinite, but what is being reflected if there is no object between them?
• The Twist: Perhaps consciousness is the spark that bridges the gap—the ability to observe oneself, thereby breaking the need for an external "real" observer.

Would you like me to expand on how this paradox might apply to AI consciousness or quantum mechanics?

I shall leave it up to you to verify if these are at all original!

Prompt to Copilot "come up with a new, totally original philosophical paradox about existence"

Here’s a fresh one for you — something genuinely original, built to itch the mind a little.

The Paradox of the Unchosen Existence​

Statement​

If your existence is the result of choices you did not make, then your existence cannot be said to belong to you.
But if your existence does not belong to you, then you cannot be the one who evaluates whether it belongs to you in the first place.
Yet the only perspective from which this question can be asked is your own.

Why it’s a paradox​

This creates a loop:

• You are the only one who can question the ownership of your existence.
• But the very act of questioning presupposes that your existence is yours to question.
• However, if your existence is not yours — because you did not choose it — then the authority to question it collapses.
• And if the authority collapses, then the question cannot be asked.
• But the question is asked, by you, whose authority is in question.

So the paradox is:

What it pokes at​

• autonomy
• identity
• the nature of “ownership” of consciousness
• the boundary between self and origin
• the circularity of self-inquiry

It’s a paradox that sits somewhere between metaphysics and existentialism, but with a twist that isn’t found in classical paradoxes like the Ship of Theseus or the Problem of Free Will.


If you want, I can help you refine it, expand it into a formal philosophical argument, or even turn it into a narrative thought experiment.

Prompt to Gemini "come up with a new, totally original philosophical paradox about existence"

Here is a new philosophical paradox concerning existence, which I will call The Echo Chamber of Being.

The Setup​

Imagine a universe where existence is not a binary state (something either is or is not), but rather a responsive property. In this universe, an object, idea, or consciousness only gains "solidity" (reality) when it is perceived by something else.

However, there is a catch: the observer must also be "solid" to confer solidity upon the observed.

• Rule A: Entity X is real only if observed by a real Entity Y.
• Rule B: Entity Y is real only if observed by a real Entity Z.
• Rule C: This chain cannot go on infinitely; the universe is finite and contains a closed loop of entities.

The Paradox​

Let’s simplify this to the smallest possible closed system: The Dyad.

• Entity A exists only if observed by Entity B (who must be real).
• Entity B exists only if observed by Entity A (who must be real).

The Question:

If A waits for B to become real before A can exist, and B waits for A to become real before B can exist, how does the loop ever begin?

If neither exists initially, neither can observe the other to grant existence. Therefore, the universe should remain an empty void.

However, if you were to step outside the system and look at the loop, you would see A observing B and B observing A. The definition is satisfied: A is observed by a real B, and B is observed by a real A. Mathematically and logically, the state "Both Exist" is a valid solution to the rules.

So, the paradox is this:

The system is logically consistent if it already exists, but causally impossible to bring into existence. It is a reality that relies on its own future state to justify its present origin. It is an echo that screams itself into being, yet requires a voice to have started the scream.

The Philosophical Implication​

This paradox challenges the concept of First Cause (or the Cosmological Argument).

Usually, we ask, "What started the universe?" assuming there must be a first domino. The "Echo Chamber" suggests that existence might be a mutual bootstrapping event. It implies that "being" isn't a property inherent to an object, but a relationship between objects.

If this is true, then you (the observer) and the universe (the observed) are caught in a deadlock: The universe is only real because you are there to witness it, but you are only real because the universe provides the context for your existence.

---

Key Takeaways​

• The Trap: Causality demands a start, but consistency only demands a loop.
• The Metaphor: It is like two mirrors facing each other; the reflection is infinite, but what is being reflected if there is no object between them?
• The Twist: Perhaps consciousness is the spark that bridges the gap—the ability to observe oneself, thereby breaking the need for an external "real" observer.

Would you like me to expand on how this paradox might apply to AI consciousness or quantum mechanics?

I shall leave it up to you to verify if these are at all original!

Thanks, those two are very like Roko's basilisk! In that they're close enough, but still nowhere actually persuasive. Just like Roko.

But are they actually original, or do they draw on something some human produced somewhere, maybe a combination of diverse human ideas? I've no idea how to ascertain that, tbh! ...But we needn't quiz ourselves about this, surely? Either AI is already able to produce truly original work, or it isn't so far able to do that. And surely the answer to that elementary Yes/No question is known to those who actually work with AI development. If the answer's a clear Yes, then fair enough! That's what it is, then, no issues. If. (eta: Is it? That's what I'm asking, that's what I'm trying to find out. /eta)

Then again, there's the question about original critique, about critical thinking.

 

[Gulliver Foyle]

And you are taking out the critical step necessary to take an intern to skilled worker

That's what a lot of people are beginning to realise. If you use ai as your intern in ten years you've no senior programmers.

 

[Darat]

That's what a lot of people are beginning to realise. If you use ai as your intern in ten years you've no senior programmers.

But you'll have lot of "senior prompters"!

 

[Gulliver Foyle]

But you'll have lot of "senior prompters"!

And lots of little bits of code that don't fit together and don't make a programme.

 

[Pixel42]

The last few posts reminded me of a classic SF story in which the most valued and lauded individuals were those who could think of the most perceptive questione to ask AI. After wracking my brain for a minute I remembered the title and author.

Jokester - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[Andy_Ross]

Advert on TV for letting Google reply to your mates messages with data it finds on your phone to save you having to interact with them and further detach you from humanity.
Wonder how long before a 'mate' asks for your bank details or those 'special' photos of your wife.

 

[Darat]

And lots of little bits of code that don't fit together and don't make a programme.

But the vibes!

 

[steenkh]

Do you think AI today is already able to concoct a Roko's basilisk off of its own steam, when given open prompts, and without drawing on existing human-made tropes?

Do you think that Roko's basilisk really was concocted without drawing on existing human tropes? I can't understand why humans can draw on all kinds of material that they have experienced in their education and upbringing, but for some reason AI's should be able to come up with new material without drawing on earlier works, if they are to be compared to humans.

 

[dirtywick]

https://twitter.com/x/status/2021412241787199947

chinese ai model creates fight scenes of brad pitt and tom cruise

 

[Chanakya]

FrDo you think that Roko's basilisk really was concocted without drawing on existing human tropes? I can't understand why humans can draw on all kinds of material that they have experienced in their education and upbringing, but for some reason AI's should be able to come up with new material without drawing on earlier works, if they are to be compared to humans.

The point is, and like I said, Roko's Basilisk is a human product. Like I said, even if Roko plagiarized it wholesale from some SF, then call it Sam the SF writer's basilisk. It's still an example of human creativity, even if it was one man drawing on twenty others' ideas.

Can AI do that? Not a rhetorical question, I'm asking. I'm sure those familiar with the innards of AI will know. Some here seems to think it might, but if they know this for a fact, then I wish they'd actually say it, rather than dropping hints that are supposed to ...well, hint, that they know what they are saying.

Like that story Darat supplied? Is it bona fide original AI work? Do we know? Or is it just a slop, an amalgam, of twenty humans' ideas pieced together from different places?

I doesn't have to be fully original, nothing is. Like Pascal's Wager is human-made. And the basilisk obviously draws on it. And yet it is different enough from it in enough respects that, IMV, it's a whole new work. ...So, prompt AI with Pascal, and tell it to come out with a horror AI scenario, or maybe instead simply ask it to produce a basilisk, an infohazard that curdles your brain: and then, if Moltbook can come out with a Roko, then that qualifies as bona fide original AI work. For this argument, it doesn't have to be one AI, it's fine if twenty bots, or maybe twenty thousand bots, draw on one another to produce it, as long as it's AI work not human, beyond the original prompts I suggested, then it's original AI work.

My question is, Can AI do that? Can AI actually write a story, or produce a Roko's Basilisk, on its own steam? Can it actually do more than parody human creativity?

I'm not arguing that it cannot. I'm trying to find out, in context of what was said, whether it can. Not in theory, not one day, but already, now.

-------

And separately from that: Can AI produce critique of Roko's Basilisk, or indeed of anything, off of its own steam, like I can, like you can? Not just collated from two thousand similar sources that are human-made, but directly basis critical thinking?

And not in theory, not one day, but now?

Again, I'm not arguing it can't. In context of what was said, I'm trying to find out if it can, and if I need to change my impression about present day AI.

----------

If someone actually knows, not just vaguely but with certainty, basis their familiarity with AI and how it actually works, then I wish they'd just say it. I really don't see how I can ask any more clearly than this. Answer not with would-be wise hints, but with a clear answer to a clear question.

 

[arthwollipot]

If someone actually knows, not just vaguely but with certainty, basis their familiarity with AI and how it actually works, then I wish they'd just say it. I really don't see how I can ask any more clearly than this. Answer not with would-be wise hints, but with a clear answer to a clear question.

I think part of your problem here is that none of us are software engineers with a specialisation in AI programming.

 

[Darat]

You have been answered clearly - the current AIs can produce content that has not existed before in this universe (or at least in our light cone). The question you seem to want to ask is really are they “creative” in the same way humans are “creative”? And the answer to that is a clear no, current AIs do not think like humans, they mimic human behaviour with different processes than what produces our human behaviour. But why do they have to be the same as humans to be “creative”? You’ll note I’ve used scare-quotes around creative, that’s because 1) it is a very ill defined word 2) I think the current generative AIs have revealed what we used to consider the domain of humans, that required something special (as in biological process not a soul or any form of dualism) is not the case.

(My definition of “creativity” is producing something coherent that has not existed before. I’ve posted several examples of this, including the program I created entirely with much older - 6 months or so ago - versions of AI, that program had never existed before.)

 

[Dr.Sid]

LLMs certainly can do logical conclusions which are not part of their training data. It's easy to test that their poetry or programming is really original. Just make the request specific enough.
We also had LLMs come up with solutions to yet unsolved math problems. It was more like obscure problems, rather than well known but hard to solve problems, but still we are rather sure the solution was not known and could not be part of the training data.
On the other hand all this is solving a problem, layering existing patters to bridge a gap between the problem specification and solution.
Roko's basilisk is not exactly that. It's taking some existing patterns, connecting them into some useful abstraction, and calling it a name. It seems even easier than finding a solution. It wouldn't even have to be really useful abstraction, just create 1000 of them, throw them into mediasphere, and some might just stick.

 

[Darat]

One snippet of news that will of course have us all shocked and concerned for Google, it appears some folk have been trying to copy Google's copied homework! Oh my, how terrible...

https://futurism.com/future-society/google-copying-ai-permission

And given the recent strand of discussion this is a timely article:

https://futurism.com/artificial-intelligence/anthropic-ceo-unsure-claude-conscious

 

[Gulliver Foyle]

But the vibes!

If I wanted vibes, I'd sit on a washing machine on a high spin cycle.

 

[Chanakya]

I think part of your problem here is that none of us are software engineers with a specialisation in AI programming.

Well, yes and no. If you/they are that, or otherwise know that you know your AI innards, and basis that say either the one thing or the other --- as far as both my questions, the creativity part, and separately from that the critical thinking part --- well then, that's where I update my understanding if you/they say different than what I think. ...But if that's not the case, like in your case you did suggest it isn't, if it's just a question of your/their general impression (as is the case with me): well then I suppose we can still talk about why we think what we do, but then it's more like a YMMV thing, like I said. Either way, no "problem" as such. My ...heh, I'll admit it, just a shade of exasperation, came from lack of that clarification in the exchanges so far.

Well, @Darat has gone some way in clarifying the first of the two questions, clearly not via hints that I must treasure-hunt my way from, so let me explore that part of it a bit further with him.