[micromacrofoot]

everyone has emotion even if it's muted, and we have reactions and desires as a result of having bodies and remembered experiences using them... these are constantly integrated into our working memories

AI doesn't really have any of that yet, but we're maybe not so far off

[Taek]

Is it really so easy to assert that an AI doesn't have emotion? Lots of the AI models are capable of getting pissed off at the users, especially the earlier ones. And sure, their emotion is merely a bias that the context window generates in their weights... but how is that different from humans? In humans, emotion is sourced from a bunch of chemical signalling, and those chemicals bias your word choice and action choice.

At a deconstructed level, I struggle to find a meaningful difference between the two.

[micromacrofoot]

because AI hasn't lived any experiences and it doesn't incorporate experience into its corpus

it's more like someone writing about a character getting angry in a book... I don't think anyone would argue that a character actually experienced anger, right? there's no subjectivity in that experience... it's the output of someone else's experience on what they'd expect the character's reaction to be, not a genuine outcome of that character's experience

That's the same here, LLMs are outputting the result of the written experiences of others... not its own experience, which it does and can not have.

Put another way, it only "knows" what it just output by reading it... it doesn't actually build experience to know anything.

We might be closer than ever to building these things, but they're not here yet.

[Taek]

I think this argument is fragile, especially when you consider agents like Claws. Any LLM that is training on its own previous interactions with users has indeed directly experienced them.

But also, what's the difference between having the memory of a prior experience and actually having gone through that experience?

For humans, reading a book about an experience and living an experience is different, because for a human the actual experience has so many more inputs attached (the sights, the smells, the sounds, etc).

For LLMs, when they train on a memory they can actually truly recapture that memory entirely by replaying the senses exactly. And LLMs are no longer limited to just text, they can do sound and video as tokens too.

Though, it's not clear why that matters to a consciousness. Whether your inputs are of one type or two or two hundred, there's no clear indication that a specific number is required as a catalyst.

[micromacrofoot]

> Any LLM that is training on its own previous interactions with users has indeed directly experienced them.

LLMs are still expensive to train, I don't think there are many people doing this with claws regularly or at all? unless you don't mean train and you're referring to memory, which is not training... most memory is just some manual form of retrieval that's shoved into the context window