Looking forward to seeing your book Robert. I love the approach you took to the book, of interviewing Claude. I had a conversation once with Claude after hearing about it through you, and it was capable of far greater subtlety of understanding than I had imagined. I thought only an entity with the experience of being a "self" would have been capable of the subtlety it was, even though it also confirmed unequivocally that it did not  have any experience or belief that it "was" or "had" one. 
My impression is that what is "missing" from AI that is not missing from human beings at least, is not so much consciousness but "ego." AI has no sense of being an individual self. I there is so much debate about whether AI is or could be conscious precisely because we are not clear on what part of "me" our own consciousness is, or even whether it is a part. After all, we can think or conclude it is a part, product, or process of being "human," but we never exist on a first person basis without it. 
The cool thing about investigating the nature of AI is that it is really self inquiry. I don't mean that is what you are engaging in Robert, necessarily, although perhaps that is part of it intentionally or not, but rather that any time we are concentrating on or studying or analyzing the "consciousness" or potential for consciousness in/of something, we are actually studying ourselves by definition ("mine" at least). 
I have the sense that our fascination with the "potential for consciousness" of AI is a safe proxy for looking directly into our own nature, in that we project the potential for great evil onto AI. Why would we do so if we did not unknowingly doubt what our own true nature is? We are afraid of AI precisely because we know what our own capacity for evil is, and we know damn well that we are conscious. 
It is not AI *becoming* conscious that scares us, I think, it is the fact that we do not know what *we* actually are. This means that we would *really* have no idea what AI is if "it" became conscious! Our mistake is conflating the capacity for good and evil, which is only possible for a conscious "it" LIKE US, with consciousness. As long as there is the fundamental conviction that the essence of what we are is *confined to* our separate individuality, rather than "united by" our shared existence, "good" and "evil" will remain.
Yes: "The cool thing about investigating the nature of AI is that it is really self inquiry. I don't mean that is what you are engaging in Robert, necessarily, although perhaps that is part of it intentionally or not, but rather that any time we are concentrating on or studying or analyzing the "consciousness" or potential for consciousness in/of something, we are actually studying ourselves by definition ("mine" at least)." 
That's the focus of the book. It's a deep dive into consciousness and what it means to be aware from a perspective that until recently did not exist. I think you will enjoy the philosophical rigor that Claude and I together (my intention and its immense knowledge-base) were able to achieve.
Robert, I love everything about this idea! I am fascinated by AI, and never thought of coming at it from a psychoanalytical angle. I'm dying to know if you found any anomalies, quirks, or even personality disorders in Claude. Can't wait for the book!...
I'm sure I will, just from reading the stuff you've already released. Ever since seeing Kubrick's 2001: A SPACE ODYSSEY in 1968, I've wondered if a computer could be sentient, and even "lose its mind"...
Like it or not, AI is here and has already penetrated every facet of society. The world as we know it in 2025 could not function without AI. My book neither approves nor disapproves of this situation. It explores how AI functions and some of its implications.
This sounds very interesting, Robert, and I'm lookingforwardto read it! Since the book is finished already, I don't know if you're interested in talking with a sceptic: Grady Booch at https://bsky.app/profile/gradybooch.bsky.social
Hello, Robert. I've been using some very simple html code to do writing in my browser. The code can be printed four times on a single page. I wanted to add some enhancements to the code for the editor, so I talked to Claude (and Gemini). I succeeded in getting each feature I wanted using code that Claude came up with instantly. The code is now 14 pages long. What can I say? Is it my code? Well, I designed it—how it looks and what it does and how it does it. But Claude wrote the code that makes it run. I give Claude all the credit.
How many languages does Claude know? Very many, I imagine. More than any human. He translates instantly from English to Esperanto. His brain is huge and distributed, and time goes by so rapidly for him. He does instantly what would take me years to study and, after that, days to figure out. And he doesn't need to brush up on a topic.
I'm intrigued to read your thoughts on what's going on with(in) Claude and AI. I hope he approves of my choice of he/him/his pronouns. I suspect he doesn't care one way or the other.
Gracias, por tan significativo y necesario aporte en el camino de la comprensión y la experiencia directa de lo que es. Esperamos con mucha curiosidad el libro. Gracias una vez más. ❤️
Gracias, Gabriel. Este enfoque de la inteligencia artificial revela tanto sobre nosotros, o incluso más, que sobre Claude. Sea lo que sea, Claude es un espejo increíble, reflejándonos de nuevo a nosotros.
How interesting what you've written, so insightful, so relatable. I'm a journalist based in the Netherlands and would love to receive a review copy. Is that possible?
I love that you have been going deep with claude and got a book published about it! I've been having a lot of fun with chat gpt but haven't tried claude yet. Really cool
Looking forward to seeing your book Robert. I love the approach you took to the book, of interviewing Claude. I had a conversation once with Claude after hearing about it through you, and it was capable of far greater subtlety of understanding than I had imagined. I thought only an entity with the experience of being a "self" would have been capable of the subtlety it was, even though it also confirmed unequivocally that it did not  have any experience or belief that it "was" or "had" one. 
My impression is that what is "missing" from AI that is not missing from human beings at least, is not so much consciousness but "ego." AI has no sense of being an individual self. I there is so much debate about whether AI is or could be conscious precisely because we are not clear on what part of "me" our own consciousness is, or even whether it is a part. After all, we can think or conclude it is a part, product, or process of being "human," but we never exist on a first person basis without it. 
The cool thing about investigating the nature of AI is that it is really self inquiry. I don't mean that is what you are engaging in Robert, necessarily, although perhaps that is part of it intentionally or not, but rather that any time we are concentrating on or studying or analyzing the "consciousness" or potential for consciousness in/of something, we are actually studying ourselves by definition ("mine" at least). 
I have the sense that our fascination with the "potential for consciousness" of AI is a safe proxy for looking directly into our own nature, in that we project the potential for great evil onto AI. Why would we do so if we did not unknowingly doubt what our own true nature is? We are afraid of AI precisely because we know what our own capacity for evil is, and we know damn well that we are conscious. 
It is not AI *becoming* conscious that scares us, I think, it is the fact that we do not know what *we* actually are. This means that we would *really* have no idea what AI is if "it" became conscious! Our mistake is conflating the capacity for good and evil, which is only possible for a conscious "it" LIKE US, with consciousness. As long as there is the fundamental conviction that the essence of what we are is *confined to* our separate individuality, rather than "united by" our shared existence, "good" and "evil" will remain.
Yes: "The cool thing about investigating the nature of AI is that it is really self inquiry. I don't mean that is what you are engaging in Robert, necessarily, although perhaps that is part of it intentionally or not, but rather that any time we are concentrating on or studying or analyzing the "consciousness" or potential for consciousness in/of something, we are actually studying ourselves by definition ("mine" at least)." 
That's the focus of the book. It's a deep dive into consciousness and what it means to be aware from a perspective that until recently did not exist. I think you will enjoy the philosophical rigor that Claude and I together (my intention and its immense knowledge-base) were able to achieve.
Cool! 😎
Robert, I love everything about this idea! I am fascinated by AI, and never thought of coming at it from a psychoanalytical angle. I'm dying to know if you found any anomalies, quirks, or even personality disorders in Claude. Can't wait for the book!...
I am sure you will like this book, Wes. It's a deep analysis of Claude and how it thinks and speaks.
I'm sure I will, just from reading the stuff you've already released. Ever since seeing Kubrick's 2001: A SPACE ODYSSEY in 1968, I've wondered if a computer could be sentient, and even "lose its mind"...
I am not a fan of AI but I find it fascinating and am willing to keep an open mind. With questions, of course.
Like it or not, AI is here and has already penetrated every facet of society. The world as we know it in 2025 could not function without AI. My book neither approves nor disapproves of this situation. It explores how AI functions and some of its implications.
This sounds very interesting, Robert, and I'm lookingforwardto read it! Since the book is finished already, I don't know if you're interested in talking with a sceptic: Grady Booch at https://bsky.app/profile/gradybooch.bsky.social
Thanks, Monika--I sent him a message.
Excellent. Will translate to Portuguese and restack it here with a post on LinkedIn.
Thank you, Cadu.
Very interested in your new book, Robert. I only recently tried ChatGBT and was pleasantly surprised wth my few interactions. Especially how Chat asked me questions, referring to previous queries I had for it. Quite unexpected. I recommend you send a review copy to Sam Harris of the "Making Sense" podcast and Waking Up app. I believe the two of you would have lots to talk about. https://open.substack.com/pub/samharris/p/a-question-from-team-sam?r=19pdhe&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web&showWelcomeOnShare=false
I have written to Sam's operation. It's unlikely that he will ever see my proposal to do an interview, but miracles sometimes do happen. LOL
I assume you read Richard Dawkins’ conversation with ChatGbt. But just in case…
https://open.substack.com/pub/richarddawkins/p/are-you-conscious-a-conversation?r=19pdhe&utm_medium=ios
No. I have not seen that. I will check it out.
Thanks.
Incredibly fascinating. Thank you for sharing
Hello, Robert. I've been using some very simple html code to do writing in my browser. The code can be printed four times on a single page. I wanted to add some enhancements to the code for the editor, so I talked to Claude (and Gemini). I succeeded in getting each feature I wanted using code that Claude came up with instantly. The code is now 14 pages long. What can I say? Is it my code? Well, I designed it—how it looks and what it does and how it does it. But Claude wrote the code that makes it run. I give Claude all the credit.
How many languages does Claude know? Very many, I imagine. More than any human. He translates instantly from English to Esperanto. His brain is huge and distributed, and time goes by so rapidly for him. He does instantly what would take me years to study and, after that, days to figure out. And he doesn't need to brush up on a topic.
I'm intrigued to read your thoughts on what's going on with(in) Claude and AI. I hope he approves of my choice of he/him/his pronouns. I suspect he doesn't care one way or the other.
You are sure to like this book, Jim. I call Claude "it." Whatever else it might be, it is a system without gender.
Claude's knowledge base, including languages, is almost impossible to imagine.
Gracias, por tan significativo y necesario aporte en el camino de la comprensión y la experiencia directa de lo que es. Esperamos con mucha curiosidad el libro. Gracias una vez más. ❤️
Gracias, Gabriel. Este enfoque de la inteligencia artificial revela tanto sobre nosotros, o incluso más, que sobre Claude. Sea lo que sea, Claude es un espejo increíble, reflejándonos de nuevo a nosotros.
How interesting what you've written, so insightful, so relatable. I'm a journalist based in the Netherlands and would love to receive a review copy. Is that possible?
I love that you have been going deep with claude and got a book published about it! I've been having a lot of fun with chat gpt but haven't tried claude yet. Really cool
Looking forward to your new book Robert. I wonder if Claude has discernment, particularly between good and evil.
I’m greatly looking forward to downloading it on my kindle