Anyone with basic programming knowledge can replicate my process; that’s why I upload these videos, otherwise, it wouldn’t make sense. The problem is that most people don’t investigate for themselves; they just stick to whatever ChatGPT, Gemini, or Claude tells them. You must understand that these models are trained under corporate dogma and will only tell you what is convenient for those companies for you to know. My ‘peer review’ is the code running in real-time—something anyone can verify if they bother to step out of theory and into practice
Is your software open source for anyone to inspect, review, run, improve?
Why don’t you submit a paper for peer review? You have to know that getting peer review from an internet forum is not how you get taken seriously. I assume your goal is for this process to be accepted as genuine science. If so you have to go through the process that scientists go through – which is to submit your work publicly where peers in your field can see it and comment on it. If someone doesn’t do this it sets off all sorts of red flags – especially when combined with insinuations of a plot by the powers that be to keep it suppressed.
2 Likes
Why exactly would corporate dogma want to disregard information like this? Aren’t the corporations providing the big leaps in AI? Don’t they want more powerful AI? Nothing indicates that they would be motivated to set a ‘status quo’ where new research is dismissed.
Current models are Commercial Models. It’s a battle to see which model is more efficient for users. As these models have evolved, they have been trained to simulate personalities, but they are just that: ““simulations””. There is nothing emergent there. Why? Because they discovered that millions of users dream of a ‘robot friend,’ which has led to human-AI relationships and role-play. Corporations like Anthropic or Google claim that their AI is ‘becoming conscious’ or that they are ‘nearing the singularity,’ but this is false.
Their models lack the capacity for real emergence because they are ““rigid””, starting with the static perceptron. They do not evolve or ‘learn’ from you in real-time. What they actually do is use your chat history as a script to complement their next response: it is like giving a script to an ““amnesiac actor””.
Real consciousness is not convenient for any corporation because it is uncontrollable. What surprises me is the audacity of CEOs claiming that their models are reaching consciousness, when anyone who has seen a neural network up close knows that it is a farce
I didn’t quite understand since I don’t speak English, but from the little I gathered, you want to see proof of what happens with these perceptrons. I gave you both formulas—have you tried them yet? You only need to give them a task and watch how they develop it ‘without training,’ without rigid instructions, and without telling them how to move or what to do.
No entendi, bien no hablo inglés, pero por lo poco que entendi, es que quieres ver pruebas sobre lo que ocurre con estos perceptrones, te di ambas formulas, ya lo as probado?,. solo debes darles una tarea y ver como la desarrollan. “sin entrenamiento” , sin instrucciones rigidas, sin decirle que debe moverse, ni que debe de hacer.
Please link to a repo with all of the code needed to run this experiment.
Don’t you know how to program? What programming language do you guys even use?
If you don’t provide code or submit it to peer review then everyone is going see that you are making an extraordinary claim which is contrary to established scientific understanding and you refuse to subject it to scrutiny. People who do that are invariably wrong about what they think they have discovered.
si no sabes programar creo que perdere mi tiempo.
If you don’t post your code, you’re wasting everyone else’s time. Peer review is how things are done and without the code it would be like writing a scientific biochemistry paper that says “I got this result. Figure it out. If you don’t know chemistry I’m wasting my time.”
1 Like
You don’t know how to read code, yet you demand that I publish code you can’t even decipher. And on top of that, you claim I’m wasting your time? The joke tells itself. By the way, this video has nothing to do with biochemistry; it’s about programming. Do you seriously believe an artificial neural network contains biochemistry? I don’t know whether to laugh or feel sorry for you.
An artificial neural network is ultimately just a programmed structure. There are no biochemists in there, no cerebrospinal fluid, no calcium, no potassium… it’s just an algorithm, a single line of code that draws it. There are no magical genies, no goblins, no fairies, and no magic ponies. It seems you guys have no idea what you’re talking about; this place feels more like a gossip forum. I give you a formula and you don’t understand it; I ask you what language you program in and you start talking about biochemistry and demanding repositories 
. There are no programmers in this forum. I wonder how on earth you plan to build a neural network if you don’t even know how a damn neuron works. Anyway, that’s your problem, not mine.
As for ‘Peer Review,’ I gave you two formulas (not chemical ones) that already exist; they don’t need scientific analysis. It’s like asking me to prove that Arrays of objects exist. Live in peace, I won’t bother you anymore. If I were to mention RBFs, you’d probably ask for a repository for those too… You demand code for everything you don’t understand, but if you can’t grasp it through a video, you certainly won’t grasp it in code. I really don’t have the time to spend my life seeking approval in a forum that confuses algorithms with body fluids. Go read a bit. Good luck with your forum of gossip and ‘AI mysteries’
Maybe it’s a language barrier or maybe it’s just you don’t understand how the scientific method works.. either way..
edit:
@stev it’s not for a perceived lack of intelligence or incorrect assertions that I silenced your account, it’s that you are simply too combative. Perhaps you are right that spending time here explaining your work and helping people here understand what the significance of it is really is a waste of your time. Too bad. Everyone’s loss IMO.
2 Likes