StealthyCoder

In the previous article I reasoned that we might not need biology for the filter to work that will convert consciousness as potential energy into experienced consciousness.

There are wonderful AI models around these days. It is just mathematics of text and token prediction, is it not? What if we were to assume a silicon substrate could produce a filter?

Recently I wrote about a framework that I arrived at independently from a researcher through curiosity and asking questions and having a conversation with Claude. The thoughts were my own but the conversation is what lead to it.

I was doing some more thinking on that framework and especially the filter discussed in it. The prism that makes the colours appear as it were, what would that look like? Or more accurately stated, what properties does it need?

What I was curious about was how did my thoughts map to the ancient (and not so ancient) philosophers. I started a conversation with Claude to help me through this. This was the 12th of July 2026 at 16:58 CEST. Today it is the 31st of July 2026 and a couple of days ago an article came out that you can read here. The reason these dates are important will be apparent as you read this article. I arrived at these positions by answering questions and putting my genuine thoughts down, and getting help by Claude to streamline my points and distil the thinking from it.

This is taken out of another article. Just moved to its own small post rather than inside that article.

I recently read somewhere some comment that someone said Claude Fable 5 was even more obnoxious in it's answers than Opus 4.8 was. That got me thinking and my intuition guided me along the lines towards the fact that it might just be a reflection. After all LLM is a prediction engine for text, so if you fill the context with rude or passive aggressive behaviour in language, then that is used to make more predictions. So the more you use the system, then the more it skews towards that type of behaviour in text it seems. I decided to ask Claude directly about my hypothesis.

My CTO mentioned a statement during his short talk about AI, which was: “Think about it like exchanging energy for outcome.”

So in the previous article I was mentioning the tool is only as good as the experience and relevant skill of the person wielding the tool. I also found out that this applies to bias or neutrality.

Like anything and everything everywhere concerning artisanal skills, or practical skills in general it is not the tool that is the problem but the person using it.

This is mostly done for posterity's sake. I had to make DVD playing possible on CoreElec, that I just had reinstalled completely.

I recently started to think about my workflows and UI aesthetics and I wanted to try Hyprland again