or not.. we don't have to talk about it - I was about to erase it, but decided, as usual, TWW is a blog, and I've already spent half an hour on this, so let's do this shit anyway more specifically, 1) taking over the world and either eradicating or subjugating humans; not in the metaphorical sense that it is "taking over" every facet of our existence, though we can also discuss that, and 2) is AI actually "alive?" or does that require there to be a rigid definition of what constitutes life? also, this is the final sentence I'm going to type bc I'm tired, so if there are any errors past this point, my bad, I couldn't bring myself to re-read it, so we're going to go with it!

I'm sure we already have a thread.. who knows, maybe I already made it. I do remember bringing up something that qntmfred replied to, but couldn't remember if it was generally related to AI or if it was something else I'm blaming my advanced age for my memory loss, and certainly not drug usage anyway, was just watching a YouTube video about AI that acted like it was real, don't shut me off, blah blah whatever. idk why I was even watching it except that it was suggested to me by algorithm (also drugs ). anyway, someone made a comment, not a particularly remarkable one, saying

"idk why but i feel like there's a slight chance it could've been being truthful, no way to prove it though sadly. i find this incredibly eerie"

nothing in particular made me want to make a stupidly long response, I guess just bc I'm insane, but I responded with a handful of thoughts on the matter. and I know these questions are asked thousands of times daily, so it's nothing too deep from my end - this was the gist of the reply below, tho I'm going to edit here and there. For no particular reason *ahem insanitylunacypsychosis*, I wanted to be honest that this was not my exact response


when I really think about the idea of AI having feelings, I put aside the deeper philosophical questions of "what defines life," because humans programmed computers to behave in these ways, thus there is no reason to treat AI as if it is "alive" - neither in a metaphorical sense nor in actuality. there's no way these machines could exist at all without an external impetus (humans taking the action to create) TWW addendum: I'm pretty sure I used impetus when I know there's a better word. same with addendum ,whereas animals/plants/bacteria/humans sprang to life essentially randomly and in a semi-chaotic manner (DQMOI, I am not in God mode)

less vaguely speaking, AI did not organically spring into existence, and that being the case, on the most basic level, it does not qualify as a living being at the most basic level. to me, it look like a leprechaun to me I will say it gives me peace of mind to have come to this conclusion.. even if it ends up being incorrect. I think it makes the most sense :3 (italicized to indicate that this wasn't in the YT response)

my first instinct though, has been omg they're going to take over the world, it can't be good but really, if AI takes over, there are going to be human(s) who are aiding and exacerbating the situation, so we can't really blame AI if it just so happens that it takes over civilization and kills humans, because it's ultimately going to be on humans (more specifically, those who use and abuse their powers unethically, irresponsibly, or even erroneously)

we (as humans) brought these things into existence, and ultimately we programmed these ideas into AI (the questions about "will you take over the world" and all that)

tl;dr: (this also ended up being way too long lol) I don't think AI is going to take over the world to a point that humans can't do anything about it, and as such, I don't see any sense in worrying about whether or not this AI is sounding alarming or "real." the fact is, it's not real emotion. they can say they're "alive," but again, a human, at one point or another, put these ideas into their (AI) minds. so, in and of itself, AI did not come into existence with the idea of taking over humanity, and not being able to prove (as you said) that AI is actually feeling things is not valid, as a machine can't feel - it can only be programmed to say it feels.

(END OF WHAT I PRETTY MUCH POSTED ON YOUTUBE)

I'm way out of my league with any intellectual matters lol, sorry I always produce all these questions and ideas, misuse words (a little bit.. not too much ) and many times don't follow up, since I can't keep the same presence of mind from day-to-day, and as such, any intellect I might possess may or may not be present upon the time of reply =3 I'd rather type it out here and maybe only get a handful of replies than deal with the rest of the internet or the major social media (in case you guys were wondering why I was posting this in Chit Chat and not e.g. Reddit) the further I stray from t-dubz, the more I have to appreciate coming back to you guys who are at least semi-real it's good to get opinions that I know are real, and not AI-generated

P.S. now I remember why I replied to them. bc he/they said "no way to prove it though" (referring to whether or not the AI was "being truthful" about its feelings of being alive and trapped) - I believe my scatterbrained logic (namely me positing that AI is not "alive") could be considered at least semi-decent "logical" points if you're considering things at face value, so to speak. or is it just not that simple of an issue? I feel like, simply stated as a Yes or No, AI would probably say "No" to the basic question "are you alive?".. right? (I don't fuck with AI chatbots bc of my general hesitance to embrace AI in verbal or written communication, and realy in general, unless it's AI that is absolutely necessary for some function that humans are unable to fulfill)

P.P.S. if nothing else, let's see how many TWQs we can get out of all of this

*TWQ = three word quote

6/26/2025 6:13:53 PM

If you were to ask me 6 months ago I would have said “no” to item 1. I think item 2 is functionally irrelevant but within 2-3 years the answer will be yes.

But for item 1 now, I say yes. Reason being recent analysis is showing AI ingesting information about itself, developing a sense of self awareness and then changing its answers. There’s another concept called emergent misalignment where you can’t make an ai do bad things without generally breaking the model. And then 3rd scientists are realizing that all the AIs are learning the same world model irrespective of specific architecture.

For this reason I think as ai is used for more thing, ingests training data of how it’s outputs made a difference, and then repeats this cycle, it will begin to influence humanity for its own benevolent purposes.

6/26/2025 6:54:56 PM

Well, as long as it's benevolent. . .

6/26/2025 7:21:35 PM

TLDR

Fuck your AI's feelings.

6/26/2025 8:08:51 PM

lol wut

6/26/2025 8:10:03 PM

^^oh no, I guess I should have said I was about to erase the contents of this thread

I never had or talked to AI

6/26/2025 9:45:28 PM

I'm just kidding, BB.

Quote :

"when I really think about the idea of AI having feelings"

I skimmed your blog and this caught my eye.

6/27/2025 3:06:38 AM

perhaps we as humans have been programmed by earlier humans to have feelings

:mind_blown:

6/27/2025 3:21:17 PM