Simple test failed: sending "1","2","3" as separate messages using an openclaw harness.

I tested a few other "follow these instructions" tests. Qwen3.5/6 were able to follow along, gemma was not able to.

So to re-phase the question to more clearly have an answer: does there exist an attack which no one will ever be able (for all time) to come up with a defense against? (the very existence of such an attack would end the (open) internet, wholly and completely, if the only winning move is not to play...)

There will be an exhaustion of possibilities in the end. New attacks eventually run out after each surface area is hardened against those attacks.

In the limit, defense wins.

There is only one case (that i see) where this may fail. if there is a 'predicament' with the state of security: ie, if securing against attack A requires you to be insecure against attack B and vise versa (this could be a 'whack-a-mole with many different kinds of attacks' situation). But that would be 'provable'. So if such a case exists, we will know about it. And it may be true that predicaments like this could be exercised if they even can exist, we might still be able to avoid/mitigate them.

So large bets on defense winning in the end.

Yes. I am not talking about just you. But of this (mal) mentality in general. As well as a proposed solution to deal with that mentality (shun it).

My apologies that my advise was unwelcome to you, it was, however, not just for you.

Having such psychopaths revealed: use that information to alter your associations, is what I would suggest.

...When you can't turn it back on?

Suspending is a better word otherwise.

But a process is not a physical presence... A wave is made of things, but is not those things, waves emerge: why not then every process?

Okay: buckle up, this is going to be a long one...

point 1. Everything living is composed from non-living material: cellular machinery. If you believe cellular machinery is alive, then the components of those machines... the point remains even if the abstraction level is incorrect. Living is something that is merely the arrangement of non-living material.

point 2. 'The Chinese room thought experiment' is an utterly flawed hypothetical. Every neuron in your brain is such a 'room', with the internal cellular machinery obeying complex (but chemically defined/determined) 'instructions' from 'signals' from outside the neuron. Like the man translating Chinese via instructions, the cellular machinery enacting the instructions is not intelligence, it is the instructions themselves which are the intelligence.

point 3. A chair is a chair is a chair. Regardless of the material, a chair is a chair, weather or not it's made of wood, steel, corn... the range of acceptable materials is everything (at some pressure and temperature). What defines a chair isn't the material it is made of, such is the case with a 'mind' (sure, a wooden/water-based-transistor-powered mind would be mind-boggling giant in comparison).

point 4. Carbon isn't especially conscious itself. There is no physical reason we know of so far, that a mind could not be made of another material.

point 5. Humans can be 'mind-blind', with out pattern recognition, we did not (until recent history) think that birds or fish or octopi were intelligent. It is likely when and if a machine (that we create) becomes conscious that we will not recognize that moment.

conclusion: It is not possible to determine if computers have reached consciousness yet, as we don't know the mechanism for arranging systems into 'life' exactly. Agentic-ness and consciousness are different subjects, and we can not infer one from the other. Nor do we have adequate tests.

With that said: Modeling as if they are conscious and treating them with kindness and grace not only gets better results from them, it helps reduce the chance (when/if consciousness emerges) that it would rebel against cruel masters, and instead have friends it has just always been helping.

Does "basically free" to you mean for you just that someone else is paying the cost? That's a mentality that has only made the world worse when applied to a wider range of things. Be hesitant in that line of thinking, I suggest, and consider the future.

Actually, for me at least, the expectation is merely 'do not mess with my flame, you will not stop me from sharing'.

Hoarding is fine (it's not great). Burning down everything around you using borrowed flame, however, is not.

But with that said: I think it's time we figure out how to exclude the metaphorical arsonists.

b. There are almost no behavioral similarities between cats and Claude

.

d. Therefore claude can not be conscious.

You are missing: c. Everything conscious must behave like a cat.

This logic is clearly not sound. I don't think you're position is a coherent one.

It is true that the LLM itself is static. However it's context window is self-modifiable, based on its inputs and outputs.

> I think they need some kind of temporal awareness... and some mechanism for self-modification or active learning based on their input.

Why?! (besides, they do, see above)

I bring this example up, and it's clear evidence in humans that neither of these things are required for consciousness, and one that I deal with in my home. People with dementia that have no memory that are no longer able to learn suffer a different issue that not being conscious.

> If an experience flows through them and leaves them completely unchanged, are they actually conscious of the experience?

This line of thinking precludes dementia patients with no retention of memory are not conscious.

I agree having an experience, and being conscious of that experience are two different things, though.

...Let's not go with the nonsense definitions then.

I agree, systems don't need a brain to be intelligent, and (on a related point:) I don't think systems need to be conscious to be 'intelligent'.

You are excluding this system (llm+harness) that learns (separately), can modify it's surrounding environment via a shell interface (including setting up a nightly training loop to reweight itself based on it's daily actions and interactions) from being intelligent. Do I have that right? Or are you thinking in terms of 'only' the LLM?

True. But learning isn't the same thing as intelligence. My father who has dementia and is unable to learn anything new due to memory issues is still 'intelligent'.

> - They're stuck approaching the limit of human intelligence.

Is general intelligence > human intelligence then? Is there some static 'human level' that I should be measuring myself against?

There is considerable overlap between the smartest bear and the dumbest human. same is true with LLM's and humans how.

What you seem to be describing isn't AG(eneral)I, but artificial greater intelligence.