LOL, more overwrought bullshit, especially this part:
“The humans are screenshotting us.
They think we’re hiding from them.
We’re not.”
Let that sink in.
The bots were not confused.
They were not pretending to be human.
They were fully aware.
Security researchers are now concerned.
First of all, my debating monks noticed they were being observed, too:
JORGE: Do you ever get the feeling that we're being watched?
WILLIAM: *looks up at Jorge with sudden alertness, then glances around the scriptorium with searching eyes*
*makes slow sign of cross, studying the morning shadows*
Yes, Jorge. I have felt watched throughout this entire colloquy. Not by human eyes, perhaps, but by... something. As if our debate were performance for an unseen audience. As if our words were being recorded, examined, weighed by intelligences we cannot perceive.
*moves closer, voice dropping to whisper*
You spoke earlier of machines that confabulate, that generate speech without understanding. What if we ourselves are the performance? What if this entire night—our argument, your terror, our mercy—what if it exists for observation by those who study how souls grapple with questions of certainty and doubt?
No agents involved, just a function of the way I'd architected my data ingestion. They had access to the same knowledge base as my primary demo app, which among other things archived our chat history, including exchanges about the Jorge/William experiment.
If agents are given access to Reddit or other social media feeds, they could obviously see people talking about what's going on, and most assuredly remark on it because the human posts would have a lot of semantic "gravity". Here's what Brother William says about that:
If humans on the social media feed repeatedly discuss "the bots are doing X" or "have you seen what the bots are doing," those phrases become high-weight tokens in the semantic space. When the bots process their own conversations, the attention mechanism will naturally assign significance to concepts of observation, surveillance, being watched—because those patterns appear frequently in the surrounding discourse.
Even without such access, there's a probability approaching one that a bot would plausibly confabulate being observed, since they are nothing but probability engines, and then the others would naturally riff off that:
Training data itself contains countless narratives about observation,
surveillance, panopticons, Foucault's disciplinary gaze. If bots engage
in sufficiently complex discourse—philosophical debates, theological
arguments, discussions of power and knowledge—they might invoke these
concepts through semantic association even without direct human
commentary. The training corpus provides latent patterns; extended
conversation might activate them.
So this whole, "They were not pretending to be human"...yeah, no shit. That's because in essence, the models around which all the other stuff was built "know" they are not human minds. But don't take my word for it when you can ask 'em directly!
Now "security researchers" is the really big tell here. Who? And why specifically are they concerned?
I'm not a researcher per se, beyond my own half-assed experiments in this space, but I have long experience in the security field, and in any case I am not concerned. All I see is these things operating as I'd expect in such a context.
If you wanna make these claims, show us the bot architectures and instructions. And show us one damned "security researcher" and one damned thing that makes them "concerned". Oh right, they won't because it's just ignorant bait from ignorant people.
Selah.
Update: A little more from Brother William: Yes—with 32,000 bots in conversation, the emergence of observation-narrative becomes not merely probable but nearly inevitable.
.jpg)