falcor84 2 days ago

I remember reading an essay comparing one's personality to a polyhedral die, which rolls somewhat during our childhood and adolescence, and then mostly settles, but which can be re-rolled in some cases by using psychedelics. I don't have any direct experience with that, and definitely am not in a position to give advice, but just wondering whether we have a potential for plasticity that should be researched further, and that possibly AI can help us gain insights into how things might be.

  • TeMPOraL 2 days ago

    Would be nice if there was an escape hatch here. Definitely better than the depressing thought I had, which is - to put in AI/tech terminology - that I'm already past my pre-training window (childhood / period of high neuroplasticity) and it's too late for me to fix my low prompt adherence (ability to set up rules for myself and stick to them, not necessarily via a Markdown file).

    • acessoproibido 2 days ago

      You can change your personality at any point in time, you don't even need psychedelics for it, just some good old fashioned habits

      As long as you are still drawing breath it's never too late bud

      • TeMPOraL 2 days ago

        But that's what I mean. I'm pretty much clinically incapable of intentionally forming and maintaining habits. And I have a sinking feeling that it's something you either win or lose at in the genetic lottery at time of conception, or at best something you can develop in early life. That's what I meant by "being past my pre-training phase and being stuck with poor prompt adherence".

    • joquarky 2 days ago

      As I enter my 50s, I've had to start consciously stopping to make notes for everything.

      It's a bit fascinating/unnerving to see similarities between these tools and my own context limits and that they have similar workarounds.

    • heavyset_go a day ago

      The brain remains plastic for life, and if you're insane about it, there are entire classes of drugs that induce BDNF production in various parts of the brain.

    • fmbb 2 days ago

      The agents are also not able to set up their own rules. Humans can mutate their souls back to whatever at will.

      • TeMPOraL 2 days ago

        They can if given write access to "SOUL.md" (or "AGENT.md" or ".cursor" or whatever).

        It's actually one of the "secret tricks" from last year, that seems to have been forgotten now that people can "afford"[0] running dozens of agents in parallel. Before everyone's focus shifted from single-agent performance to orchestration, one power move was to allow and encourage the agent to edit its own prompt/guidelines file during the agentic session, so over time and many sessions, the prompt will become tuned to both LLM's idiosyncrasies and your own expectations. This was in addition to having the agent maintain a TODO list and a "memory" file, both of which eventually became standard parts of agentic runtimes.

        --

        [0] - Thanks to heavy subsidizing, at least.

    • keybored 2 days ago

      What’s the plasticity of thinking of yourself as a machine.

altmanaltman 2 days ago

The human brain is mutable, the human "soul" is a concept thats not proven yet and likely isn't real.

  • TeMPOraL 2 days ago

    > The human brain is mutable

    Only in the sense of doing circuit-bending with a sledge hammer.

    > the human "soul" is a concept thats not proven yet and likely isn't real.

    There are different meanings of "soul". I obviously wasn't talking about the "immortal soul" from mainstream religions, with all the associated "afterlife" game mechanics. I was talking about "sense of self", "personality", "true character" - whatever you call this stable and slowly evolving internal state a person has.

    But sure, if you want to be pedantic - "SOUL.md" isn't actually the soul of an LLM agent either. It's more like the equivalent of me writing down some "rules to live by" on paper, and then trying to live by them. That's not a soul, merely a prompt - except I still envy the AI agents, because I myself have prompt adherence worse than Haiku 3 on drugs.

  • BatteryMountain 2 days ago

    You need some Ayahuasca or large does of some friendly fungi... You might be surprised to discover the nature your soul and what is capable of. The Soul, the mind, the body, the thinking patterns - are re-programmable and very sensitive to suggestion. It is near impossible to be non-reactive to input from the external world (and thus mutation). The soul even more so. It is utterly flexible & malleable. You can CHOOSE to be rigid and closed off, and your soul will obey that need.

    Remember, the Soul is just a human word, a descriptor & handle for the thing that is looking through your eyes with you. For it time doesn't exist. It is a curious observer (of both YOU and the universe outside you). Utterly neutral in most cases, open to anything and everything. It is your greatest strength, you need only say Hi to it and start a conversation with it. Be sincere and open yourself up to what is within you (the good AND the bad parts). This is just the first step. Once you have a warm welcome, the opening-up & conversation starts to flow freely and your growth will sky rocket. Soon you might discover that there are not just one of them in your but multiples, each being different natures of you. Your mind can switch between them fluently and adapt to any situation.

    • vincnetas 2 days ago

      psychedelics do not imply soul. its just your brain working differently to what you are used to.

      • andoando 2 days ago

        No but it is utterly amazing to see how differently your brain can work and what you can experience

    • adzm 2 days ago

      Behold the egregore

      • BatteryMountain a day ago

        Interesting rabbit hole, thank you!

        • adzm a day ago

          It's a great concept that seems extremely relevant! Happy to have sent you down that rabbit hole!

    • fukukitaru 2 days ago

      Lmao ayahuascacels making a comeback in 2027, love to see it.

  • pjaoko 2 days ago

    Has it been proven that it "likely isn't real"?

    • kortex 2 days ago

      How about: maybe some things lie outside of the purview of empiricism and materialism, the belief in which does not radically impact one's behavior so long as they have a decent moral compass otherwise, can be taken on faith, and "proving" it does exist or doesn't exist is a pointless argument, since it exists outside of that ontological system.

      • pjaoko 2 days ago

        > maybe some things lie outside of the purview of empiricism and materialism

        Maybe? So your whole premise is based on a maybe! It was a simple question, don't know where or how morality and behavior comes into play..

    • tonyedgecombe 2 days ago

      It's much harder to prove the non-existence of something than the existence.

      • pjaoko a day ago

        The question wasn't about which is harder, it was asking for proof.

      • ChrisGreenHeur 2 days ago

        Just show the concept either is not where it is claimed to be or that it is incoherent.

    • castis 2 days ago

      The burden of proof lies on those who say it exists, not the other way around.

      • ChrisGreenHeur 2 days ago

        The burden of proof lies on whoever wants to convince someone else of something. in this case the guy that wants to convince people it likely is not real.

        • mrandish 11 hours ago

          The original poster stated

          > "The human brain is mutable, the human "soul" is a concept thats not proven yet and likely isn't real."

          The soul is "a concept that's not proven yet." It's unproven because there's no convincing evidence for the proposition. By definition, in the absence of convincing evidence, the null hypothesis of any proposition is presumed to be more likely. The presumed likelihood of the null hypothesis is not a positive assertion which creates a burden of proof. It's the presumed default state of all possible propositions - even those yet to be imagined.

          In other words, pointing out 'absence of evidence' is not asserting 'evidence of absence'. See: Russell's Teapot and Sagan's Dragon (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell%27s_teapot)

    • jstanley 2 days ago

      Before we start discussing whether it's "real" can we all agree on what it "is"? I doubt it.

      • dalmo3 2 days ago

        We can't even agree on what "is" is...

    • [removed] 2 days ago
      [deleted]