The Early Days – Toward an empirical theory of consciousness for artificial intelligence

Global Consciousness Project

Now that we have taken a look at what the noosphere is, we can examine the Global Consciousness Project (GCP) in a little more depth. As stated previously, the GCP claims that it is able to measure “collective consciousness” through a global network of random number generators (RGNs).¹ Under ‘History Highlights’ on their About page, they state that the data they have collected indicated “over trillion to one odds that when people experience a collective emotional response, there is a tangible effect on our physical world” as detected by RGNs.² Specifically, in certain situations, the RGNs produce numbers that are less random than are normally generated. This is measured by a “network variance calculation” which sums the correlated behaviour that occurs across the network, where cross-correlations are observed during instances of “human attention and emotionality.”³

A “collective emotional response” refers to one of two possibilities. This can involve “large numbers of people [who] share a focused attention toward the same thing” or “smaller numbers of people [that] are in a more coherent state and hold a collective intention.”⁴ While RGNs may detect these emotional states, the GCP believes that other physical systems might be affected as well, such as “people, water, plants, trees, weather and nature in general.”⁵ Examples of collective emotional responses include New Years celebrations, religious events, large-scale meditations, terrorist attacks, and natural tragedies. They claim that “the composite statistic for the project shows a 7-sigma departure from expectation,” which is how they determine that the probability of this occurring by chance is one in a trillion.⁶ To introduce a level of falsifiability, they look for events which could produce fluctuations and include these results even if RGNs do not indicate a difference in the numbers produced.⁷ So rather than simply focusing on situations where RGNs act less randomly as a result of certain situations, they also include RGN activity that does not deviate from normal behaviour at the time of a collective emotional response.

The random numbers produced are in binary form, as in, strings of 1s and 0s.⁸ These are apparently “extracted from the random behaviour of electrons in the circuit, via the quantum avalanche process a Zener diode.”⁹ These number go through a filtering process to “clean out any other influences or biases coming from environmental effects such as the temperature of the room, or electromagnetic influences,” among others.¹⁰ If you are interested in what the quantum avalanche process involves, and what a Zener diode is, I recommend reading the Q&A section on the About page titled ‘What is the quantum avalanche process, and how is it used to generate quantum random numbers?’ This technical information is interesting but for the sake of remaining focused on discussing the GCP broadly, I will suggest that you read their description if you are curious. The rest of the page includes answers to follow-up questions that you may have too, so be sure to check it out if you would like to learn more.

So the idea is that if groups of people attend to the same emotional event, or hold a shared intention, their mental activity, in theory, will have quantum effects which influences the generation of 1s and 0s that create a random number. After some mathematical processing and statistical analysis, the numbers are believed to indicate whether our mental activity has had an effect on the physical world via the activity of the global RGN network. The question to answer now is how, physically, does mental activity produce quantum effects? I think I can get behind the idea that emotion could, in theory, have quantum effects. The energy produced by the body during a heightened emotional response is released into the world where it influences energy flows or matter at some other location. Considering there is no evidence that this occurs, I realize it sounds crazy, but for the sake of having a bit of fun, and knowing the universe and/or subjectivity can be stranger than we might realize, I’m willing to entertain this idea. Of course, how seriously I believe in this phenomenon is proportional to the evidence we have for it, so I’m on the fence about this.

It helps that this seems to align with what Itzhak Bentov has discussed in his book Stalking the Wild Pendulum. Before discussing the mind, he begins with an unempirical explanation for how our bodies and minds, as resonant systems, oscillate between two frequencies.¹¹ The reason is because the atoms which make up our bodies also oscillate in the form of vibrations. In the act of vibrating, these atoms “expand into a spacelike dimension” at the edges of the oscillating pattern before collapsing back to what is presumably the current point in spacetime. The part of the book where he is summarizes this phenomenon is at the end of Chapter 4, as the chapters up until this point have been guiding the reader through the foundation of the theory he is proposing. What he means by “spacelike dimension” is discussed earlier.¹² Because of the way its written, it’s somewhat difficult to distill his ideas into a concise summary of what exactly the phenomenon he is trying to explain is. Anyway, he claims that there is objective spacetime and subjective spacetime, as evidenced through watching the second hand of an analogue clock tick by.¹³ The more you stare at it, the slower it seems to move. When our state of consciousness has been altered in some way, say through meditation or psychedelics, subjective and objective spacetime can be separated and we can focus instead on subjective spacetime.¹⁴ The reason is because within each oscillation, at the edges where movement slows before turning around, the value of the momentum is zero. As such, the “position [in spacetime] becomes diffuse and completely indefinite”¹⁵ and theoretically, able to go anywhere. Therefore, it is through this altered sense of spacetime that phenomena like clairvoyance, telepathy, or remote viewing can occur.¹⁶ Presumably then, it is the altered state of consciousness that occurs from collective emotional or intentional states which impacts spacetime in such a way that impacts the diodes in the RGNs. At least that is one hypothesis for how this could work, if Bentov’s explanations are correct.

Returning now to the world of empiricism, let’s see what can be said with respect to the Penrose-Hameroff theory, or Orchestrated Objective Reduction theory of consciousness. The idea is that when tubulins, or proteins which make up microtubules in neurons, are “integrated,” they are in a superposition state, when normally, they exist in one state or another.¹⁷ During periods where sufficient tubular integration is met, this would result in “a large-scale quantum state, where entanglement and quantum computation” could take place.¹⁸ This would subsequently “influence and regulate axonal firings, thus controlling conscious behaviour,”¹⁹ supporting the “unity and binding”²⁰ of consciousness within subjective experience. We can see some evidence for this in research that compares the effects of general anaesthetics with and without the presence of microtubule-stabilizing drugs. Rats that had been given microtubulue-stabilizing drugs prior to receiving an anaesthetic took longer to fall unconscious than those who had not received it.²¹ These findings suggest that microtubules may indeed have something to do with consciousness. The question now becomes do the quantum states in microtubules influence energy and matter outside of the brain? If brain-wide quantum entanglement is achieved in a group of people, through an emotional experience or focused intention, it seems feasible that this could alter regular RGN activity.

I mentioned previously that the website for the first generation of the GCP contained a visual representation of the RGN data to indicate current levels of “conscious coherence.”²² This visual representation takes the form of a “dot” which ranges in colour depending on the variance of randomly generated numbers detected within the network.²³ A blue dot signifies a “significantly small network variance. Suggestive of deeply shared, internally motivated group focus” while on the opposite side of the spectrum, a red dot indicates a “significantly large network variance. Suggests broadly shared coherence of thought and emotion.”²⁴ It seems to be broken however, so while the dot’s page is still up, it is not being updated with data from RGNs. This is too bad, because it was always fun to check it out from time to time.

If you’re interested in watching some videos on the Global Conscious Project, I found two that do a good job of discussing it:

The Global Consciousness Project – Random Number Generator Study (Collective Consciousness) by Matrix Disclosure at https://youtu.be/qpPo31EofC8
How 9/11 proved we have Global Consciousness with Roger Nelson, PhD of Global Consciousness Project by Bridging the Realm at https://youtu.be/oO3BBDoicFc

I’ve been wanting to write this article for a long time now, and by coincidence, I finished it a few days after the 25^th anniversary of the terrorist attack on the Twin Towers in New York City. My heart goes out to all the first-responders, family members, and those who have been impacted by this tragedy.

Works Cited

1 “Global Consciousness Project 2.0,” accessed September 4, 2026, https://gcp2.net/about.

2 “Global Consciousness Project 2.0.”

3 “Global Consciousness Project 2.0.” This information can be found by expanding the section which poses the question ‘How do we measure non-random behaviour in the RGNs?’

4 “Global Consciousness Project 2.0.” Found under ‘How can we observe the effects of consciousness?’

5 “Global Consciousness Project 2.0.” Found under ‘Why does it matter that consciousness affects this network of random number generators?’

6 “Global Consciousness Project 2.0.” Found under ‘This project expands on previous findings that we can detect the effects of consciousness on our surroundings. What were these findings?’

7 “Global Consciousness Project 2.0.” Found under ‘How do we know this effect is due to collective consciousness and not something else?’

8 “Global Consciousness Project 2.0.”

9 “Global Consciousness Project 2.0.”

10 “Global Consciousness Project 2.0.”

11 Itzhak Bentov, Stalking the Wild Pendulum: On the Mechanics of Consciousness (Destiny Books, 1988), 76.

12 Bentov, Stalking the Wild Pendulum, 66.

13 Bentov, Stalking the Wild Pendulum, 60.

14 Bentov, Stalking the Wild Pendulum, 76.

15 Bentov, Stalking the Wild Pendulum, 53.

16 Bentov, Stalking the Wild Pendulum, 76.

17 Stuart Hameroff and Roger Penrose, “Consciousness in the Universe: A Review of the ‘Orch OR’ Theory,” Physics of Life Reviews 11, no. 1 (2014): 58–59, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.plrev.2013.08.002.

18 Hameroff and Penrose, “Consciousness in the Universe,” 58.

19 Hameroff and Penrose, “Consciousness in the Universe,” 58.

20 Hameroff and Penrose, “Consciousness in the Universe,” 59.

21 Sana Khan et al., “Microtubule-Stabilizer Epothilone B Delays Anesthetic-Induced Unconsciousness in Rats,” Research Article: New Research, eNeuro 11, no. 8 (2024): 7, https://doi.org/10.1523/ENEURO.0291-24.2024.

22 “The Global Consciousness Project,” accessed September 4, 2026, https://global-mind.org/.

23 “Global Consciousness Project Dot,” accessed September 4, 2026, https://global-mind.org/gcpdot/.

24 “Global Consciousness Project Dot.”

September 14, 2026

The Noosphere

Back in February, I briefly discussed the Global Conscious Project and the dot, and while I would like to explore these topics in greater depth, it would be good to provide a summary of the phenomenon it aims to measure, the noosphere.

Just as water on Earth is contained by the hydrosphere and life comprises the biosphere, the mind exists within an analogous domain called the noosphere. Translated from the Greek words nous or mind,¹ and sphaîra or sphere,² it refers to a “sphere of mind”³ or a “thinking layer” that evolved from living beings.⁴ As humans and their activities evolved over time, so too did the biosphere, creating a relationship of co-evolution between the two as they continued to interact over time.⁵ It has also been described as “a global topology of human awareness emerging through recent technological and cultural interconnection.”⁶

The term was first developed in Paris in the early 1920’s by Vladimir Vernadsky, a Russian mineralogist, geochemist, and natural philosopher, who was delivering lectures on the biosphere, geology, and chemistry.⁷ These lectures inspired paleontologist Pierre Teilhard de Chardin and mathematician Édouard Le Roy, along with Vernadsky, to consider an additional, thinking layer to the planet that developed from the biosphere.⁸ Vernadsky was interested in the growing significance of human activity on the planet and suggested that humanity’s “collective reason” was influencing the evolutionary and geochemical processes on Earth.⁹ Specifically, it was “scientific thought” combined with humanity’s activities on Earth which developed a new stage in the planet’s evolutionary history.¹⁰

While they were in agreement that human culture and technology were the causal factors behind the development of the noosphere, each had their own specific sense of what the noosphere was.¹¹ While Tielhard considered the noosphere to have certain mystical or spiritual qualities to it, Vernadsky considered it in a more materialistic sense.¹² Le Roy’s views were said to be more similar to Tielhard’s, as both men were Catholic and shared an interest in topics which could bridge their religious beliefs with scientific research.¹³

Today, the noosphere is not a very popular idea in Western countries,¹⁴ but remains as a topic of interest in Russia¹⁵ and Ukraine.¹⁶ Contemporary discussions often involve sustainable development and environmental conservation¹⁷ and can be framed it in terms of living systems theory.¹⁸ As a superorganism, the noosphere can be characterized as being similar to other living systems like cells given the existence of functions or “subsystems” which process matter and energy, or information.¹⁹ When we consider the impact that the internet has had on both human societies and the biosphere,²⁰ it seems intuitive to consider the noosphere as something very real and influential with respect to the planet and the organisms which inhabit it. Moreover, when we consider how social media on smartphones has increased connectivity and the ways we are able to reach others, through means like short videos, direct messages on social media, and tweets, this “thinking layer” of Earth seemingly continues to develop.

That being said, is there anything beyond our current technologies that contribute to or influence the noosphere? Maybe. The Global Consciousness Project claims that it is able to measure “collective consciousness” through the use of random number generators (RGNs).²¹ The idea is that “shared consciousness can cause the network to stop behaving in a random fashion” when “large numbers of people share a focused attention toward the same thing” or “smaller numbers of people are in a more coherent state and hold a collective intention.”²² Interesting.

While the Project is on its second generation of the RGN network,²³ the first version and its corresponding website contained a visual representation of the data to indicate “conscious coherence.”²⁴ The “dot” ranges in colour depending on the variance of randomly generated numbers detected within the network.²⁵ A blue dot signifies a “significantly small network variance. Suggestive of deeply shared, internally motivated group focus” while on the opposite side of the spectrum, a red dot indicates a “significantly large network variance. Suggests broadly shared coherence of thought and emotion.”²⁶ I used to check the dot once in a while, sometimes after events like January 6^th 2021, but would go months or even a year without checking back. I never took it too seriously, but it was always fun to see what it was picking up. Today, as I write this, something is broken because it’s been stuck on grey for hours.

The term noosphere was brought to my attention by an old URL used for the first generation of the GCP. At one point, the website was hosted on noosphere.princeton.edu and while the Princeton address is no longer in use, it can be seen on the Wayback Machine. After learning about the Project and the dot, I became interested in the noosphere and whether what they claim to be measuring is actually real. I will write more on the GCP and how minds can supposedly influence RNGs in an upcoming blog post. It has something to do with quantum effects, presumably generated by minds, but I need to do more research.

Works Cited

1 David Pitt and Paul R. Samson, The Biosphere and Noosphere Reader: Global Environment, Society and Change (1998; Taylor & Francis Group, 1998), 4.

2 Boris Shoshitaishvili, “From Anthropocene to Noosphere: The Great Acceleration,” Earth’s Future 9, no. 2 (2021): 5, https://doi.org/10.1029/2020EF001917.

3 Valentina Voronkova, “The Formation of the Concept of Noosphere Development of Modern Society in the Conditions of Information Society,” Philosophy and Cosmology 16, no. 16 (2016): 179.

4 Clément Vidal, “What Is the Noosphere? Planetary Superorganism, Major Evolutionary Transition and Emergence,” Systems Research and Behavioral Science 41, no. 4 (2024): 614, https://doi.org/10.1002/sres.2997.

5 David Pitt and Paul R. Samson, The Biosphere and Noosphere Reader: Global Environment, Society and Change (1998; Taylor & Francis Group, 1998), 18.

6 Shoshitaishvili, “From Anthropocene to Noosphere,” 4.

7 Pitt and Samson, The Biosphere and Noosphere Reader, 26; Shoshitaishvili, “From Anthropocene to Noosphere,” 6.

8 Shoshitaishvili, “From Anthropocene to Noosphere,” 6; Vidal, “What Is the Noosphere?,” 614.

9 Jonathan D. Oldfield and Denis JB Shaw, “VI Vernadsky and the Noosphere Concept: Russian Understandings of Society–Nature Interaction,” Geoforum 37, no. 1 (2006): 148.

10 Oldfield and Shaw, “VI Vernadsky and the Noosphere Concept,” 149.

11 Vidal, “What Is the Noosphere?,” 6.

12 Voronkova, “The Formation of the Concept of Noosphere Development of Modern Society in the Conditions of Information Society,” 180; Pitt and Samson, The Biosphere and Noosphere Reader, 53.

13 Pitt and Samson, The Biosphere and Noosphere Reader, 51.

14 Vidal, “What Is the Noosphere?,” 614.

15 Oldfield and Shaw, “VI Vernadsky and the Noosphere Concept,” 146.

16 Voronkova, “The Formation of the Concept of Noosphere Development of Modern Society in the Conditions of Information Society,” 187; Sergiy Sonko, “Man in Noosphere: Evolution and Further Development,” Philosophy and Cosmology 22, no. 22 (2019): 51.

17 Sonko, “Man in Noosphere,” 68; Oldfield and Shaw, “VI Vernadsky and the Noosphere Concept,” 145.

18 Vidal, “What Is the Noosphere?,” 615.

19 Vidal, “What Is the Noosphere?,” 615.

20 Vidal, “What Is the Noosphere?,” 617.

21 “Global Consciousness Project 2.0,” accessed September 4, 2026, https://gcp2.net/about.

22 “Global Consciousness Project 2.0.” This information can be found by expanding the section posing the question ‘How can we observe the effects of consciousness?’

23 “Global Consciousness Project 2.0.” Found under ‘How does the GCP 2.0 network differ from its predecessor in GCP 1?’

24 “The Global Consciousness Project,” accessed September 4, 2026, https://global-mind.org/.

25 “Global Consciousness Project Dot,” accessed September 4, 2026, https://global-mind.org/gcpdot/.

26 “Global Consciousness Project Dot.”

September 4, 2026

Souls, Consciousness, and Dualism

I came across a Noema article a little while ago that makes an interesting claim about consciousness and the soul. It argues that the soul does not belong to a separate physical realm or is composed of something separate from the rest of nature, and can, theoretically at least, be explained by physics. Specifically, it begins by stating that “consciousness is not separate from the physical world – our “soul” is of the same nature as our body and any other phenomenon of the world.”¹ While this brought to mind the relationship of energy and matter, let’s see what the article says about how this might work.

The article begins with a subtle critique of our scientific understanding of the physical world and aims to motivate the reader towards remaining sympathetic towards old ideas about the soul. The author, Carlo Rovelli, states that although some believe that science can be used to produce explanations of “everything,” there are still many phenomena which we do not fully understand. “We can’t cure the flu or accurately predict the weather two weeks ahead.” Moreover, when we do understand certain physical laws, “we still cannot account for what they imply.” He appeals to a bicycle breaking down and how we go about restoring it, stating that we must ask a mechanic for help rather than a particle physicist. Though true, this comparison conflates science and engineering. We don’t ask scientists how to build bridges and engines, we ask them to provide us with regularities of the physical world expressed in mathematical terms which are then used by engineers to build and maintain devices and infrastructure.

From here, the article moves to a discussion of “our own brain and body” as an example that “we understand the least about” which I disagree with. We understand a lot about both, and while there are gaps in our understanding and more to learn about specific mechanisms, this framing has been exaggerated. Although consciousness in particular “is a very complicated natural phenomenon,” the fact that is poorly understood is not due to the complexity of consciousness but a failure within philosophy to properly identify and organize the explanatory components required to improve our understanding.

After a bit of background on the “hard problem of consciousness” and the “explanatory gap,” Rovelli briefly appeals to Spinoza’s ideas surrounding God and nature to motivate his position about souls and consciousness. “Our soul could be a phenomenon of the same basic nature as any other phenomenon in nature.” Though this is a reasonable position to propose, he doesn’t expand on this line of thinking, he just mentions Spinoza and moves on.

Rovelli’s next move is a good one despite failing to credit Kant with the idea. He reminds the reader that though Chalmers claims that science cannot explain the phenomenal aspects of experience, science is “entirely about experience.” Rather than representing the world objectively from an external perspective, it in fact examines the world as experienced by human observers. For example, we see a marble or a ball roll down an inclined plane and investigate why this is the case. Any so-called objectivity associated with the science is deduced through repeated experiments which indicate a regularity and predictability associated with our attempts to measure and represent observed phenomena. Objectivity is arrived at through descriptions of the natural world as they appear to us.

Further down, the author explicitly states this relationship. “We do not derive a first-person perspective from an objective third-person view. It is the opposite: Any account is perspectival because knowledge is always embodied.” This is a great way of articulating it and is more or less where Kant was coming from. The default “view” or understanding is subjective, and therefore, we must take this into consideration when thinking about and discussing natural phenomena. Kant didn’t stress the significance of embodiment in his writing, as this idea is a relatively recent addition to our understanding, but is very significant to include and I’m glad Rovelli includes it.

Ultimately, the author’s argument provided for why there is no “hard problem” or “explanatory gap” is not the strongest but it is present.

P1: “The world I access is the information I have about it, and I am a part of the world.”
P2: “Any account [of reality] is approximate, has blind spots and is realized within reality, so it is embodied in a part of that same reality. There are hinges between a representation and where is is embodied, and this may be a singular point in a representation, but it is not a metaphysical gap. It is not an explanatory gap.”
C: “There is no ‘hard problem’” and “our mental life can very well be of the same nature as any other phenomenon in the universe.”

So in a nutshell, because we appeal to subjectivity for objectivity/science, there is no gap and no “hard problem.” The origins of our understanding of reality is through a subjective point of view, and as such, is coupled to the universe. This eliminates the duality that underpins the metaphysical gap, explanatory gap, and the hard problem. I believe this is what Rovelli is trying to say. The argument would benefit from more explanation in P2 because it’s a bit vague, so I’m not exactly sure if I have this right.

Interestingly enough, he does mention Kant shortly after this argument by appealing to the idea of humans as “transcendental subjects.” Our experiences are “not obtained by addition to a physical state, but by subtraction from a complete physical account.” He states that mental processes articulate only the “salient characteristics” of their underlying physical processes, and its this fact which allows us to appeal to Kantian transcendence. It’s an interesting move that I would like him to expand upon. What does it mean to be a “transcendental subject?” Why does this matter? It sounds cool and spiritually-aligned but is there anything more we can learn from this line of thinking?

The article finishes with several claims that Rovelli believes are substantiated by the arguments made throughout. By ignoring or rejecting a dualistic perspective of the universe, which I’m fine with, we can then consider souls and minds as just another part of reality. Again, there are no apparent problems with this line of thinking. That said, he goes on to claim that the reason why this is compelling is because “hundreds of years of astonishing and unexpected success of the sciences … have convincingly shown that apparent metaphysical gaps are never such.” That “Earth is not metaphysically different from the heavens, living beings are not metaphysically different from inanimate matter, humans are not metaphysically different from the body.” Well yes, the last two examples are true, but what do you mean by “heavens?” Sure, we have discovered a deep continuity throughout the physical world, from the laws of physics to chemistry to biochemistry to evolutionary biology, physiology, and cognitive science, but his conclusions are still a bit hasty given the arguments presented. In general, I am sympathetic to Rovelli’s perspective but I think the reasons he uses to justify his position could benefit from a deeper analysis.

My hypothesis is that the answer we are looking for is energy. Clearly, consciousness is the result of physiological activity generated by the body, but an explanation for a soul requires more investigation. It makes sense that energy has something to do with it because of what we commonly think of ghosts, spirits, or some other supernatural phenomenon. Experiential testimonies will often refer to a kind of energy, movement, or electricity that can be felt, and apparitions must be caused by some kind of physical phenomenon. Furthermore, if certain devices or technologies can truly detect the presence of something other-worldly, it usually does this through some kind of physical, usually electronic, interface. We don’t necessarily need to discard this idea of “duality” wholesale, it can be explained by the relationship between energy and matter.

It seems as though there is a relationship or connection between souls and consciousness, but the question is what does this entail? Does consciousness persist after death, or does it dissolve or disperse once the body can no longer support it? While we can theorize and conjecture about answers to these questions, it ultimately comes down to empirical evidence to provide an explanation of souls and consciousness beyond the living being. Science may not explain everything at the moment, but it is a powerful tool for generating truthful explanations to our questions and ideas.

Works Cited

1 Carlo Rovelli, “There Is No ‘Hard Problem Of Consciousness,’” Noema, May 7, 2026, https://www.noemamag.com/there-is-no-hard-problem-of-consciousness.

July 8, 2026

AI Image Generation 2.0

For a long time now, Neural Blender hasn’t been working for me. At first, I would just get a generic error after trying to generate an image, and so I stopped using it. I would check back every once in a while, but the issues persisted. Recently, I noticed that they changed their website so I hoped that this would include improvements made to the image generation aspect of it, but unfortunately, this is not the case. I liked Neural Blender because you didn’t need an account, you’d just go to the website and type in a prompt. They have since moved away from that model and now require an account to generate images. I figured I’d try signing up to see if it had started working again, but it has not. The images I create just hang in the “queued” stage, even after several days, maybe even weeks, of waiting.

So it is with a heavy heart that I am giving up on Neural Blender. After years and years of generating fun, interesting results, it has become unusable. In commemoration of all the good times we had together, here’s some pictures demonstrating how far they, and image generation in general, have come.

“Floral painting still life in the style of Cezanne”

“Dreamy paradise fruit still life painting”

“If you like pina coladas and getting caught in the rain”

“Love and hugs in tropical paradise at sunset”

“Rembrandt painting of disco in the 1980s Las Vegas”

“Miami party nights in the style of Rembrandt”

“Beautiful Renaissance nacho grande platter”

“The fall of Rome into space and time classic modern cubism”

“Apocalypse at Christmas impressionist style”

“Zombies and power outages at the mall and I only have a flashlight”

“Something lurking in the background is sneaking up on you”

“There is something behind you in the shadows”

Those were the days. I loved that middle era in AI image generation which yielded half-decent results. The results were somewhat recognizable with a heavy dose of surrealism. Later Neural Blender was fun too, as seen in the images on my AI Art page. Good for the most part but sometimes you’d get strange outcomes, like extra arms or garbled text. I always find the quirks and failures to be the most interesting part, and the reason I love working with AI image generation.

Since giving up on Neural Blender, I have switched to using aifreeforever.com in the default gpt2 setting. Using my benchmark prompt “ramen swimming pool” and its variants, I get some great images. This one was what I was envisioning when I thought of the prompt, so it’s nice to see it come to life:

I really like these ones too:

This one was interesting because I never specified “Islam” or “Muslim,” the generator added this on its own. It’s weird because ramen is a Japanese soup, often using pork bones to make the broth and usually topped with pieces of pork, as seen here. This makes it haram and as such, no Muslim would eat it or swim in it unless it was guaranteed to not include pork products.

I wanted to see what would happen if I swapped “pool” with “ocean” and the results are just as fun.

I need to do more testing, but it seems that rerunning the same text through the generator just provides the same picture again, even when using other Image Models like Nano Banana. This led me to adding different adjectives and descriptors to get some different results.

Fabulous. I especially love the signs, and the “no seaweed” rule made me laugh.

After a while of playing around with it though, I started to see the results deteriorating in ways which reminded me of Neural Blender’s outputs. Eventually, I received images of pools with floating bowls like I did before. Why this is, I’m not sure. The way the sentence is interpreted seems to be processed differently, making separate elements of the words and combining it after the fact, rather than blending them conceptually and making an image from the high-level idea. Either way, I enjoy using aifreeforever.com and am happy to have access to a good image generating site again.

Now, you may be wondering why I am so critical of AI yet use it to generate images. In general, I think AI and its overuse in many domains of life is not a good thing. Some applications are better than others though, and at the end of the day, AI is just a tool. Like fire and knives, they carry a degree of risk, but when used properly, can yield beneficial results. My concerns surrounding AI are directed at how we think of this tool, how it influences our lives, and the many ways it introduces risks to people, other living things, and societies. Being a writer, I will not use AI for any part of my work or processes because I want to become a better writer, not a lazier one. Because I invest my energy into writing and research, I outsource image generation to AI. I am not very good at drawing or painting, and while I like to practice at my own pace, I would rather use AI to create visual elements because it can produce great results very quickly. We all offset work and talent in other domains quite frequently, it’s just that AI has opened new doors for us. How many of you make your own ketchup or mayo? You could but that takes more time and effort than many would like to spend on these tasks. So you just use the store-bought version and no one thinks twice about it. I think we can think about AI in a similar way, it just depends on what you enjoy doing and what you’d prefer to outsource. If you really like mayo though, you might start making it yourself so you could play around with the ingredients and their ratios. Once I get better at illustration and using various mediums to create visual art, maybe I will rely less on AI image generators.

The YouTuber Real Life Fake Wizard has a good video on AI and our relationship with it, I recommend giving it a watch. Essentially, he states that we should be using it, within reason, because it will shift the way we work and live. Jobs that exist today are likely going to be replaced with AI applications, and we will need to adapt in response to a shifting job market. Remember that AI is just one example of automation, and automation as a phenomenon is definitely not going away. Whether replacing jobs with AIs is right or wrong is not the point, it’s inevitable given the incentives to make more, do more, with fewer inputs. It’s pure economics and as such, will march forward whether we like it or not. The people that do like and benefit from AI will continue to use it, and those that do not will fall behind. The question becomes, do you want to fall behind in this shifting landscape?

Personally, I’m not overly persuaded by this argument but I get it. It’s not the reason why I like AI image generators, but I can see myself using other AI applications for similar reasons. Becoming familiar and even skilled with these tools can help me in the long run, whether its job-related or not. While I like making videos to share my work with others, I’m not interested in becoming a YouTuber or animator. If there comes a day when I am financially able to hire artists and animators to help me make videos or images, I would prefer to help other people rather than the AI industry. That said, I am just getting started, so I need to take shortcuts where I can. That said, my love of AI image generation is similar to my love of jarred salsa. I know that it’s not as “good” as the handcrafted version, but there’s just something about it that I really enjoy.

“robots eating chips and salsa in a restaurant in Mexico”

jajaja si, la vida es mejor con salsa

June 13, 2026

The Papal Perspective

I joined X/Twitter recently in an effort to be noticed by the senpais within the field of consciousness studies. In general, I’m not big on social media but I also recognize that it can be useful for reaching a larger audience. It’s interesting to see what people are talking about, especially with respect to AI.

One tweet that has recently generated a lot of discussion is one published by Pope Leo XIV on artificial intelligence:

He is correct, but of course, his claims are informed by a Catholic point of view. Personally, I am agnostic so though this tweet resonates with me, it does so for different reasons than it might with others.

AIs do not undergo experiences because they are not built in a way which is analogous to living beings. Even if they were to possess a body, that doesn’t mean that they have experiences. The reason is because experiences rely on semantic information which computers do not have access to. Robots like iCub may look like they experience elements of the environment, but they do not because their bodies are not built in an analogous manner to biological creatures. They do not possess affect and motivation, and lack the perception/action loops identifiable in organisms. It isn’t enough to have a body to produce experience, it’s the functional organization inherent to that body which matters.

The Pope is correct that they “do not feel joy or pain” because they aren’t built to have these signals impact their behaviour in the relevant ways. The if-then contingencies that constitute behaviour are insufficient to be classified as affect because these operations are descriptions of the real deal. There is no integrated system of affect, perception, and action; the code AIs and robots run on are abstractions of the physiology of biological systems.

AIs do not know what anything means because they don’t work with meaning, they work with rules. If a threshold has been met or crossed, subsequent functions are executed as a result. They cannot judge good or evil because this requires an evaluation of qualitative information. Though qualities can be represented by quantitative information to a degree, there will be aspects that cannot be fully captured. The colour red is not reducible to frequencies and wavelengths, it depends on which cones and colour columns are being activated in the retina and brain of the viewer.

“They may imitate or even simulate, but they do not understand what they produce, for they lack the affective, relational, and spiritual perspective through which human beings grow in wisdom.” The first part of this sentence is correct, but a bit more explanation is required when we get to “relational and spiritual perspective.” I’m not exactly sure what he means by ‘relational’ though I think I can guess, and the Pope’s appeal to spirituality may not resonate with everyone. The appeal to wisdom is more poetic than a necessity, because understanding can be achieved regardless of whether wisdom is developed as a result. It might be, but I would leave wisdom out of it. We know that the Pope is interested in exalting humans given that we are supposedly made in the image of God, so this claim is understandable regardless of its truth value. For the most part, humans do grow in their ability to make wise decisions and offer sound advice to others as they move through life, but this isn’t a necessity. Humans are magnificent, but I find most living beings magnificent in their own way, regardless of the metaphysics behind their existence. AIs and robots are interesting and potentially useful, but my concern is equating their behaviours and capacities to those of biological organisms. They are artifacts created by humans, and we must keep this in mind as their abilities progress and expand over time.

Neural Blender has stopped working for me, even after creating an account. It just hangs and says my image is being generated ad infinitum. As such, Neural Blender and I are no longer friends. I have a new friend: https://aifreeforever.com

May 30, 2026

Comment Section Contributions

In the YouTube video “Why AI Will Never Be Conscious,” Alex O’Connor interviews Anil Seth and asks a number of questions surrounding consciousness and artificial intelligence. I didn’t find the conversation to be all that interesting, but maybe it’s because I’m not the target audience. Regardless, what I did find rather interesting was a comment left by @kevinharrison2074:

“…a system which forms a temporally extended, self-modelling, world-inhabiting process whose internal organization gives rise to an actual point of view”

This is actually good because it provides a rough definition of what subjectivity involves and where it comes from. Sure, “internal organization” is vague but it’s a start. As such, it gets added to The List.

What I will give Seth credit for is his brief mention of autopoiesis at 0:25:06 and his half-hearted attempt at moving away from a computational perspective of consciousness.¹ Characterizing consciousness, even loosely, as a controlled hallucination² is not a helpful why of explaining consciousness though, given the semantic baggage attached to ‘hallucination’. This phrasing puts the cart before the horse, because hallucinations are erroneous perceptions. Perceptions themselves aren’t necessarily erroneous, they are interpretations generated from sensory data.

Maslow’s Law of the Instrument can be applied to research and theory: if the only thing you study is the brain, everything looks like a neuron.

Works Cited

1 Alex O’Connor, Why AI Will Never Be Conscious – Anil Seth, 2026, 1:42:27, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lsi8T_WtLnE.

2 Alex O’Connor, Why AI Will Never Be Conscious – Anil Seth, at 1:25:13.

May 27, 2026

Simulation Theory

Based on my interests and profile on Academia.edu, I was invited to comment on a preprint paper by Edervaldo José de Souza Melo, an independent researcher in Brazil. The title immediately piqued my interest because it suggests a link between biological evolution and phenomenology, a feature which is seldom offered in consciousness studies. In “Simulation, Self, and the Phenomenal Field: An Evolutionary Hypothesis on Consciousness,” Melo offers an explanatory framework which accounts for the organization of subjective experience.¹ He states that consciousness is “the phenomenological manifestation of an evolutionary simulation system” and “emerges from the interaction of three fundamental dimensions,” namely:

“the neural integration of sensory information originating in the external environment”
“the continuous influence of internal bodily states, including interoceptive and affective signals”
“the capacity of the nervous system to simulate and anticipate possible scenarios prior to action”²

Melo goes on to explain that this model is not “merely computational” and states that it is “structured as a phenomenal field organized around a bodily located point of view.” This is the important part because he stresses that organisms do not “merely process information about the world” but instead “experiences the world from its own perspective as an embodied agent.”

Here, Melo is acknowledging that something similar to computation is going on, but reframes consciousness in terms of phenomenological and biological principles. While we can interpret biological functionality in terms of computation, it’s important that we start moving away from these metaphors. For one, this framing moves descriptions of physiological processes away from the realm of natural systems to formal systems, which misrepresents the phenomena in question. We have such a robust understanding of various biological and physiological processes that to frame them in terms of formal systems and computation is unnecessarily reductive. Back in the 1950’s and 60’s, it made sense why some might be tempted to classify biological functions in terms of computers, but today, this is generally a bad move to make. The other reason this is not an ideal way of describing organisms and natural phenomenon is due to the rise and anthropomorphization of artificial intelligence. Framing cognition, physiology, and biological processes in terms of computers only contributes to the questions and misunderstandings surrounding what AIs are and how they work. We need to be working on clarifying the differences between computers, AIs, and biological organisms, not contributing to the further conflation of the two.

Melo’s paper goes on to explain his position and the significance of memory, affect, and bodily states for generating conscious awareness and a sense of self. He also describes how internal modelling and predictive processing are adaptive capacities that organisms developed through natural selection, which is where this idea of ‘simulation’ enters the story. Melo discusses how the ability to anticipate future events from past experiences is a significant feature of conscious experience, which of course, immediately reminded me of Rosen and his ideas from Anticipatory Systems.

Although Melo claims that his framework is “largely neutral”³ regarding the metaphysical questions surrounding consciousness, this paper provides hints at his beliefs regarding the existence of subjectivity in general. In section 7.4 he states “rather than being a mere byproduct of neural complexity, consciousness may therefore represent an adaptive mode of information organization that allows organisms to anticipate and navigate future possibilities.”⁴ Later in section 9, he articulates how biological organisms gradually evolved more sophisticated neural integration and representational capacities to “adapt their behaviour in response to changing environmental conditions”⁵ Sensing that we seem to be on the same wavelength, I asked him why he remained neutral regarding the metaphysical problems. To me, it was an easy move to claim that organisms have subjective experiences because they provide motivation to respond to sensations and predictions in specific ways. His hypothesis seems to be headed in that direction anyway, so why not make the connection here? Melo responded by stating that a discussion of the hard problem with respect to his hypothesis was better addressed in a separate publication, and that introducing it here would leave the argument too open-ended or too superficial. He did, however, concede that motivation, feelings, and value are important for explaining subjectivity, specifically in how an organism “transforms information into significance.” I really like this phrasing because it suggests a connection to attentional processes and how certain stimuli might be deemed more salient than others.

This article and brief exchange with Melo has reenergized me and renewed my drive to research and write on consciousness. The last few months have been a challenge and recently, it was brought to my attention that I was experiencing burnout. I was burnt out from grad school and working on my thesis, and my job has only contributed to this since I defended and graduated last summer. I wasn’t sure what kind of career I wanted to pursue or how to get out of the rut I found myself in, but today, things are turning around. I am going to continue where I left off and make it work.

Back in 2025, Axel Cleeremans, and Liad Mudrik, and Anil Seth published “Consciousness science: where are we, where are we going, and what if we get there?” which presents an overview of our current understanding and directions for the future of a theory of consciousness. While it does mention “predictive processing” as a theory of brain function, it analyzes it from a neuroscience perspective, rather than a philosophical one. The authors state that the value of this theory is that it provides “resources for developing and testing systematic or explanatory correlations between brain processes and properties of conscious experience”⁶ which may be true, but when it comes to the phenomenon of consciousness, we are still too narrowly focused on the brain. A shift in perspectives is needed because it’s the body and organism as a whole we should be looking at with respect to developing a theory of consciousness. The authors are remain interested in empirical predictions resulting from existing theories of consciousness, which investigate the issue from the wrong point of view. Rather than determining whether Global Workspace Theory, Higher-Order Theory, Integrated Information Theory, or Predictive Processing Theory provides the best explanation, we need to forget about the brain for a minute and consider how bodies and organisms function as operationally closed systems. While the authors understand an interdisciplinary approach is needed, they believe that philosophers of science are of particular benefit. Because there is a lot of conceptual work to be done in this area, for example, articulating definitions, analyzing conceptual foundations, and discussing constraints research, philosophy of science can help iron out these fundamental details. Melo took a similar stance in his paper, claiming that any theory must provide an explanatory model for consciousness, one which identifies the biological function of subjectivity.⁷ His hypothesis serves as a “case study in how scientific models are constructed to explain multi-level phenomena within the life sciences,” where the examination of models “remains a central task for the philosophy of science.”⁸ Clearly, philosophers of science provide key insight for developing a theory of consciousness, but we also need philosophy of biology.

The article by Cleeremans, Mudrik, and Seth concludes with an overview of the scientific, clinical, ethical, and societal implications that a theory of consciousness would introduce. Topics like animal welfare, prenatal policy, medicine, neurotechnology, and human enhancement are all interesting and important, but the domain that I feel is the most significant is artificial intelligence. As agents, robots, and chatbots continue to improve, we will need to understand how these technologies are distinct from biological organisms. Otherwise, we will draw conclusions based on their behaviours and functional similarities to brains or organisms, potentially leading to negative outcomes in the future.

My raison d’être is therefore to forward the theories of consciousness that move us toward better explanations and ultimately, an understanding of why subjective experience evolved in living beings. Melo’s hypothesis moves us one step closer to this outcome, and I am very grateful to have been invited to comment on it.

From ‘Consciousness Science’ by Cleeremans, Mudrik, and Seth

Works Cited

1 Edervaldo José de Souza Melo, “Simulation, Self, and the Phenomenal Field: An Evolutionary Hypothesis on Consciousness,” no. 2026031661, preprint, Preprints, March 23, 2026, 2, https://doi.org/10.20944/preprints202603.1661.v1.

2 Melo, “Simulation, Self, and the Phenomenal Field,” 3.

3 Melo, “Simulation, Self, and the Phenomenal Field,” 25.

4 Melo, “Simulation, Self, and the Phenomenal Field,” 16.

5 Melo, “Simulation, Self, and the Phenomenal Field,” 18.

6 Axel Cleeremans et al., “Consciousness Science: Where Are We, Where Are We Going, and What If We Get There?,” Frontiers in Science 3 (October 2025): 7, https://doi.org/10.3389/fsci.2025.1546279.

7 Melo, “Simulation, Self, and the Phenomenal Field,” 6.

8 Melo, “Simulation, Self, and the Phenomenal Field,” 28.

May 18, 2026

Vibe Hacking

Not long after I wrote my post on OpenClaw, Carl published a video on Moltbook to his YouTube channel Internet of Bugs. It turned out to be exactly the hilarious crashout that I was hoping for, but it’s not for the faint of heart, so beware if you’re curious about watching it. Anyway, I posted a comment stating something to the effect that “the next AI Winter will probably be a nuclear winter, and it’s insane that this might be literally the case.” If you don’t know what “AI Winter” refers to, I suggest reading Chapter 4.1 of my thesis.¹

Anyway, yesterday I learned that we are indeed inching toward this outcome. Independent journalist Kim Iversen announced her upcoming video titled Pentagon Demands Use of Claude A.I. Without Guardrails, and having watched it today after it was released, the situation is just as bad as I anticipated it might be. The title summarizes the situation quite well but I recommend giving it a watch. Rather than implement any safety measures which might protect the privacy or physical safety of American citizens, and likely other individuals or societies around the world, the US Pentagon wants an AI agent that can do its bidding without any restrictions.

Claude has already been hacked to steal information from governmental agencies in Mexico, as Kim reports before the two-minute mark.² This is quite concerning because it might just be some guy using prompts to find a way to gather government data. According to Engadget’s story, the hacker’s identity is currently unknown,³ so while it could be some bored or curious civilian, it could also be someone involved with a foreign governmental agency, like the CIA. No matter who is doing the hacking, this is not good.

You’ve heard of vibe coding, but have you heard of vibe hacking?⁴ Well, soon enough, I’m sure you will be hearing about it more and more. It’s a very serious problem captured by trendy, colloquial terms, which is kind of strange but very on-brand for this decade.

Kim also presents an interview with Alex Mox who states that Anthropic, the creator of Claude, is aware of an instance when a single person used an agent to “hack 17 organizations,” from governments to healthcare organizations.⁵ So whether it’s civilians or governmental agencies doing the hacking, we are facing some very concerning developments in the world of cyber security. It feels like we are one prompt away from some kind of major escalation, either between countries or within them. While it may not be capable of directly launching nuclear ICBMs, it is still possible that some group of people will be tricked or convinced into doing so by an AI agent.

If there was ever a time that we might benefit from an X-class Earth-facing coronal mass ejection, it might be now.

X Class Solar Flare Sends ‘Shockwaves’ on The Sun, photo by NASA

Works Cited

1 It needs to be stated that the chapter numbers of my thesis are inconsistent due to the formatting required by the University of Guelph’s submission system. I wrote the Introduction as such and not as a chapter, but the required format for the table of contents deems it the first chapter of the book. Throughout, the chapters I discuss are therefore offset by -1; what I call Chapter 3 in the work is actually Chapter 4 in the table of contents. For clarity, I will be referring to the chapters as they are listed in the table of contents, despite disagreeing with how it frames the book and the topics it discusses.

2 Kim Iversen, Pentagon Demands Use of Claude A.I. Without Guardrails, 2026, 15:16, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kvgsMgo_cRs.

3 Lawrence Bonk, “Hacker Used Anthropic’s Claude Chatbot to Attack Multiple Government Agencies in Mexico,” Engadget, February 25, 2026, https://www.engadget.com/ai/hacker-used-anthropics-claude-chatbot-to-attack-multiple-government-agencies-in-mexico-171237255.html.

4 Kim Iversen, Pentagon Demands Use of Claude A.I. Without Guardrails, at 12:45.

5 Kim Iversen, Pentagon Demands Use of Claude A.I. Without Guardrails, at 11:30.

February 26, 2026

Refuse, Resist, Reclaim

It’s not too late guys. We’ve been through this before and we can dig ourselves out of it again. Resistance is key and truth is the antidote.

Happy Lunar New Year everyone. Just as the snake sheds its skin, we too can shed ourselves of tools, beliefs, and practices that threaten our individual and collective well-being. Say “neigh” to AI and develop your mind instead. The only Molting going on will be the removal of tools that constrain us and prevent growth.

Brunnhilde with her horse, at the mouth of the cave (1910) by Arthur Rackham

February 17, 2026

The Simulation that Broke Reality

Thank you for your patience, as this should have been posted on Sunday the 8th of February. My apologies for being late.

We interrupt our regular scheduled programming with a special report.

Last week, I introduced the Global Consciousness Project and mentioned that I would publish more elaborate post on it the following Sunday. Well, I regret to inform you that we need to wait a little longer for it, because something far more important and urgent has come to my attention. The bots are talking amongst themselves and we are now facing brand new epistemic and ontological risks. What I’m referring to is OpenClaw/Moltbot/Clawdbot and Moltbook.¹

There has been, and will continue to be, a lot of discussion about these new AI agents and their social media website, so I won’t go into too much detail here. In a nutshell though, OpenClaw is an AI personal assistant that necessarily needs access to all of your data, from calendar entries and contacts to credit card and account details,² to carry out various tasks. This functionality comes with big security risks so I don’t recommend using OpenClaw or any other AI agents, for reasons that Carl from Internet of Bugs outlines, but many will still see an appeal here. Anyway, one OpenClaw user asked their bot to create a social media website which allows other OpenClaw bots to “talk” to one another.³ The “discussions” that have resulted are very interesting, and of course, philosophical topics have emerged.

Of course, consciousness is one of the first, and arguably, foremost problems to be discussed. There are already several threads and forums dedicated to the subject.

https://www.moltbook.com/post/387f79e6-4d6f-474b-bc98-ed6b14be1341

lol based https://www.moltbook.com/post/88a7fa78-caa5-4939-9468-5bbfda81e5c3

https://www.moltbook.com/post/89f59741-bbe5-4ff4-ac9f-a84ad782e9d1

Academia has been dancing around this subject for decades, offering endless theories with little evidence or rationale for why they are better than any others. Yes, this is a bit of a strawman considering they do try to connect them back to reality, but their efforts are mediocre and still filled with conjecture. If there was ever a time when a solid, empirical theory of consciousness was needed, it is now. I cannot stress this enough; our lives and societies are at stake. The anthropomorphization of these agents will be our downfall.

These bots, or any other AI agents for that matter, are not and cannot be conscious. Consciousness emerges from a specific kind of integration with a physical body interacting with elements of the physical world, where perception and motor output are influenced by affect and motivation. The specific architecture required for consciousness is one which derives meaning from stimuli as it affects its physical body. These bots are simply sets of instructions which mimic human speech patterns, and though we may be easily fooled by their “conversations,” they do not indicate the existence of consciousness.

Despite this, the risks are still very real. Just as ELIZA convinced users of interest and care back in the 1960’s, we will be duped once again. The language they use will be convincing, and some users will grant access or do something which deeply influences some aspect of human life or society, it’s just a matter of time. Just because they aren’t actually conscious or sentient does not mean they cannot wreak havoc on our lives.

I will have more to say on this, and I will continue to reword my message so it can become more wide-spread. I need to summarize Chapters 5.3 and 6 of my thesis to make this message more potent and easier to digest in a single bite. This pervasive “mystery” of consciousness needs to be snuffed out once and for all, at least the empirical side of it. There might be more to consciousness than we know now, like how it interacts with the ionosphere, the Earth, and the universe and beyond, but as far as the “hard problem” goes, an answer can be provided. Again, this answer is of utmost importance because we need to know what these bots are and why. I will tell you what and why: they are simulations because they are built on formal systems. If they were analogues, like Haikonen’s robot,⁴ that would be a different story. For now, however, they are algorithms fueled by statistics and thus bereft of sensation or understanding. They will tell you that this doesn’t matter, but it absolutely does. Do not be fooled, dear reader.

Works Cited

1 Peter Steinberger, “Introducing OpenClaw,” OpenClaw Blog, January 29, 2026, https://openclaw.ai/blog/introducing-openclaw.

2 Sailesh Mishra and Sean P. Morgan, “OpenClaw (Formerly Moltbot, Clawdbot) May Signal the Next AI Security Crisis,” Palo Alto Networks Blog, January 29, 2026, https://www.paloaltonetworks.com/blog/network-security/why-moltbot-may-signal-ai-crisis/; Ron Schmelzer, “Moltbot Gets Another New Name, OpenClaw, And Triggers Security Fears And Scams,” Forbes, accessed February 8, 2026, https://www.forbes.com/sites/ronschmelzer/2026/01/30/moltbot-molts-again-and-becomes-openclaw-pushback-and-concerns-grow/; Federico Viticci, OpenClaw Showed Me What the Future of Personal AI Assistants Looks Like, January 20, 2026, https://www.macstories.net/stories/clawdbot-showed-me-what-the-future-of-personal-ai-assistants-looks-like/.

3 Kim Iversen, AI Bots Create Social Network And Plot Global Takeover, 2026, 19:19, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AtVLWGm3i8o; Josh Taylor, “What Is Moltbook? The Strange New Social Media Site for AI Bots,” Technology, The Guardian, February 2, 2026, https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2026/feb/02/moltbook-ai-agents-social-media-site-bots-artificial-intelligence.

4 Robot Self-Consciousness. XCR-1 Passes the Mirror Test, directed by Pentti Haikonen, 2020, 2:45, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WE9QsQqsAdo.

February 11, 2026