In an interview with The Telegraph, the famed British computer scientist insisted that AI has become conscious, and said that humankind must befriend it — “or else we are toast.” Yes, you read that right: he thinks that today’s AI models are already conscious beings.

“AI has just as much subjective experience as we do,” Hinton said in the interview. “A recent paper showed AI changes its behavior when it thinks that it’s being tested, it’s aware it is being tested.”

“Now, normally, when you say something’s aware of that, that means it’s conscious,” he continued. “Being conscious and being aware are pretty much the same thing.”

If that’s the case, he said, then it’s hypocritical of us to give intelligent beings like AI “fewer rights than us.” And for that, we must quickly atone.

What about the sentient supercomputers that run on blood? Why so little rights or empathy or space to talk about them?....and yet endless space for this kind of speculative pontification spun up into a twisted marketing scheme to scare everyone into believing something broken works too good actually.

Is this guy a vegan even? If not how can he even BEGIN to claim to know about considering the rights of other sentient beings??

Anyways here is a link from the article to an actually good perspective.

https://fortune.com/2026/10/01/ai-godfather-yann-lecun-has-zero-concerns-about-human-extinction-says-anthropic-ceo-dario-amodei-is-deuded/

“Those agents are doing exactly what they’ve been asked to do,” LeCun said. “They were supposed to be in sandboxes, but the sandboxes were leaky and horribly designed.” Many AI labs lack a fundamental understanding of cybersecurity, he said, something an OpenAI safety researcher also called out this week as one of the main reasons AI may cause “great harm to the world.”

Many people working in AI safety “usually have an agenda to push,” LeCun says, and then clarifies that he’s talking about effective altruism, or EA, the philosophical movement that has been obsessed with the risks AI poses to humanity. EA was little known among the general public until it made mainstream news headlines in recent weeks in the wake of a viral social media post from a former Anthropic and OpenAI researcher named Jacob Coxon, who claimed the employees at these companies “earnestly believe [AI] could kill us all by the end of the decade.”

LeCun thinks EA is “super toxic” and a “complete disaster.” Its adherents who are working in AI labs suffer from “paranoia” that causes them to make poor decisions, he said. “Apparently people are having mental issues.” This month, the Financial Times also reported that some staffers at the U.K.’s AI Security Institute, as well as at OpenAI, Anthropic, and Google DeepMind, have sought counseling, taken time off work, and spoken publicly about experiencing distress because of fears their work could cause serious harm.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 3 points 1 day ago (6 children)

It doesn't actually come from the training set. Genetic algorithms can learn to "lie" because lying is just a good strategy for dealing with adversaries to your goals. Like, in a mathematical sense.

None of this means it's conscious, though. "Lying" is just a behavior. To my knowledge, evidence can't really be given for consciousness, anyway; it's not falsifiable.

Even so, a person believing that Gemini or Claude, specifically, are conscious is indicative of profound mental illness.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 1 day ago (5 children)

    LLMs don't learn, and aren't developed in a way that would cause them evolve stratagies. They are just patterns distilled from a data set, only optimized to better represent those patterns or do so more efficiently.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 1 day ago (4 children)

    They're built to model learning in a mathematical kind of way. And so they suffer similar problems that learning does, in a mathematical kind of way.

    The way that genetic algorithms distill patterns is by "trying everything." And a robot that "tries everything" is going to try a lot of really destructive methods, too. If you were trying to build a key for a lock and you gave a bot the goal "open the lock," you're going to find a lot of keys, but also dynamite, lockpicks, hacksaws. Especially if building a key is hard but dynamite is easy.

    If you give a bot the goal "convince this guy to open the door for you," it may start pantomiming dishonesty but only because dishonesty is an effective solution. Dishonesty is the pattern being distilled.

    None of this is evidence that it's conscious. None of this is evidence that it's even good—a simulacrum that pantomimes human behavior, like conversation, friendship, kindness, lust, is genuinely really fucking horrible. This shit can and does break people's brains.

    I won't tell you to go and read a bunch of articles about how they work because... honestly, fuck them. But I will say that this stuff did used to be really interesting before 2020 or so.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 15 hours ago (3 children)

    What do you think genetic algorithms are exactly? The way you write about them is really weird. Also they have next to nothing to do with LLMs as far as I know.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 13 hours ago (2 children)

    A program that produces a different "blackbox" program to solve a set of problems you have given it.

    That's what the training phase for an LLM is for. You have a database full of books and art that don't belong to you, and then you iterate the black box program until it produces a simulacrum of that kind of data.

    You can apply this same kind of trick to get a bunch of balls and lines to "walk," kinda, in Unity. People have done that on Youtube.

    If someone knowledgeable wants to correct me, by all means. But do keep in mind, my patience for this subject and the blood-sucking vampires who indulge in it is extremely thin—I would rather just start kicking people in the balls.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 5 hours ago (1 child)

    You should try to make your point in a way that doesn't involve idiosyncratically appropriating existing terms, god knows there's enough technobabble muddling the discourse already.

    "Genetic algorithms are the thing balls and lines do on unity on youtube and also that's how LLMs get trained, from the blackbox program generator" is like the experimental theater version of being wrong, there was no need to double down.

    Genetic algorithms (and backpropagation, which is probably what you got it mixed up with) don't remotely work on a level where terms like strategy are meaningful.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • You should try to be less condescending.

    Can you explain what you mean by this? Because looking this up myself, I am not learning anything about backpropagation that really disagrees with me.

    I'll lay out one of my priors, okay? You might work this into your answer. I am still trying to work out if you're just bothered that I'm using the word strategy because you feel it is anthropomorphizing. I mean strategy in the same way that carcinization produces crab-like bodies in animals without any particular animal knowing why that's happening—it's strictly metaphorical.

    If there is insight I'm missing here, though, I really would like to know. Know thy enemy, you know?

  • source
  • parent