Uploaded September 2024 | Updated September 2026, 1 week ago
MLST is sponsored by Brave:
The Brave Search API covers over 20 billion webpages, built from scratch without Big Tech biases or the recent extortionate price hikes on search API access. Perfect for AI model training and retrieval augmentated generation. Try it now - get 2,000 free queries monthly at brave.com/api.
Prof. Mark Solms, a neuroscientist and psychoanalyst at the University of Cape Town, presents a radical challenge to mainstream consciousness research. Drawing on decades of clinical and experimental evidence -- from decorticated animals that retain emotional behavior to hydranencephalic children who display clear affective responses without a functional cortex -- Solms argues that consciousness originates not in the cerebral cortex but in ancient brainstem structures, particularly the reticular activating system and periaqueductal gray.
The conversation traces a sweeping intellectual arc from Spinoza's dual-aspect monism through Shannon's information theory to Karl Friston's free energy principle, building the case that feelings are the organism's fundamental means of monitoring its homeostatic state. Solms contends that the hard problem of consciousness only seems intractable because the field began with the wrong modality: vision, which is not intrinsically conscious, rather than affect, which is.
Tim Scarfe and Solms explore the implications for AI, the failures of behaviorism, the neuroscience of psychoactive substances and REM sleep, and Jaak Panksepp's SEEKING system as the dopaminergic engine of curiosity and exploration. The result is a compelling argument that understanding consciousness requires putting feelings back at the center of brain science.
---
LINKS:
Full Transcript: app.rescript.info/share/e6521573ac5e4329ee715f768cf82b06
Download PDF transcript: app.rescript.info/api/public/sessions/c1459f338bba5d58/pdf
MLST is sponsored by Brave:
The Brave Search API covers over 20 billion webpages, built from scratch without Big Tech biases or the recent extortionate price hikes on search API access. Perfect for AI model training and retrieval augmentated generation. Try it now - get 2,000 free queries monthly at brave.com/api.
Prof. Mark Solms, a neuroscientist and psychoanalyst at the University of Cape Town, presents a radical challenge to mainstream consciousness research. Drawing on decades of clinical and experimental evidence -- from decorticated animals that retain emotional behavior to hydranencephalic children who display clear affective responses without a functional cortex -- Solms argues that consciousness originates not in the cerebral cortex but in ancient brainstem structures, particularly the reticular activating system and periaqueductal gray.
The conversation traces a sweeping intellectual arc from Spinoza's dual-aspect monism through Shannon's information theory to Karl Friston's free energy principle, building the case that feelings are the organism's fundamental means of monitoring its homeostatic state. Solms contends that the hard problem of consciousness only seems intractable because the field began with the wrong modality: vision, which is not intrinsically conscious, rather than affect, which is.
Tim Scarfe and Solms explore the implications for AI, the failures of behaviorism, the neuroscience of psychoactive substances and REM sleep, and Jaak Panksepp's SEEKING system as the dopaminergic engine of curiosity and exploration. The result is a compelling argument that understanding consciousness requires putting feelings back at the center of brain science.
---
LINKS:
Full Transcript: app.rescript.info/share/e6521573ac5e4329ee715f768cf82b06
Download PDF transcript: app.rescript.info/api/public/sessions/c1459f338bba5d58/pdf
![Panel discussion on ARC Prize 2024 (Zurich)
Filmed at Tufa AI Labs in Zurich in early January 2025, this panel brings together Tim Scarfe with the actual winners of the 2024 ARC Prize Daniel Franzen and Jan Disselhoff (the ARChitects) alongside IBM Researchs Michael Hersche, with Tufa Labs founder Benjamin Crouzier moderating.
The conversation opens with Tim explaining why o3s performance on ARC forced him to fundamentally update his views. Hed always believed solution-space prediction was impossible for ARC-style problems, assuming youd need programs with compositional generalization. o3 changed that, though questions about dataset contamination and the sheer compute cost ($17 per task) remain.
The heart of the episode is hearing directly from Daniel and Jan about how they actually won. Their approach is elegant: they tokenize ARC grids line by line, then run a depth-first search through the LLMs token probability space. Because ARC grids have far fewer valid completions than natural language, theres a tight alignment between completion probability and correctness. They exploit this by searching below a probability threshold, augmenting problems (flipping, rotating), and multiplying probabilities across perspectives to select the right answer. Its the same model doing generation and verification just with shifted viewpoints.
The panel then gets into informed speculation about what o3 is actually doing under the hood. Is it tree of thought? A single model doing self-play search? The consensus leans toward something like STaR (the Noah Goodman Self-Taught Reasoner approach) at training time, with sophisticated tree search during inference to find optimal chain-of-thought prefixes.
Daniel drops what he calls his spiciest take: that chain-of-thought reasoning in discrete tokens is fundamentally the wrong approach. He points to Metas Large Concept Model as more promising thinking in continuous concept space rather than being forced to externalize thoughts as words. Michael Hersche pushes back, noting youre still missing proper state representation either way.
The discussion closes with the perennial question of whether benchmarks test the right things, what AGI even means (Chollets skill acquisition efficiency definition comes up), and whether wed recognize AGI if it showed up wearing a jagged intelligence profile. Tim notes that using ChatGPT Pro with o1 has been genuinely unreal qualitatively different from anything before.
REFERENCES:
General:
[00:00:00] ARC Prize
https://arcprize.org/
[00:00:00] Tufa AI Labs
https://tufalabs.ai/
[00:00:59] Jan Disselhoff
https://www.linkedin.com/in/jan-disselhoff-1423a2240/
[00:01:12] Daniel Franzen
https://github.com/da-fr
[00:01:50] Michael Hersche - IBM Research
https://research.ibm.com/people/michael-hersche 1
LINKS:
Full Transcript: https://app.rescript.info/share/c9d448cb603038533e299712808607d1
Download PDF transcript: https://app.rescript.info/api/public/sessions/f4ebf79c7b6d4d71/pdf
Daniel Franzen
https://github.com/da-fr Panel discussion on ARC Prize 2024 (Zurich)](https://i.ytimg.com/vi/mt3Im4j5iaQ/mqdefault.jpg)
![Dont invent faster horses - Prof. Jeff Clune
SPONSOR MESSAGES:
***
CentML offers competitive pricing for GenAI model deployment, with flexible options to suit a wide range of models, from small to large-scale deployments.
https://centml.ai/pricing/
2. Sponsorship
[00:03:00] 2.1 TufaAI Labs and CentML
Jeff Clune has spent his career chasing one of sciences biggest questions: how did evolution produce the explosion of complexity we see in nature, and can we build algorithms that do the same thing? In this wide-ranging conversation, he lays out the case for open-ended evolutionary algorithms systems designed to generate novel and interesting outcomes forever, drawing on principles from both Darwinian evolution and human cultural innovation.
Clune explains the central paradox of his work: trying too hard to accomplish a specific goal is often the worst strategy. Instead, the best results come from recognising serendipity and keeping hold of interestingly new things, regardless of whether they seem immediately useful. This insight, drawn from Kenneth Stanleys work on novelty search, underpins a new generation of algorithms that use foundation models as judges of what counts as genuinely interesting and novel.
The conversation covers POET (evolved environments for reinforcement learning), NEAT (neuroevolution of augmenting topologies), ADAS (automated design of agentic systems), and OMNI-EPIC (using language models to generate open-ended environments). Clune walks through how these systems riff on previous discoveries to create increasingly complex challenges from simple ball-kicking tasks through multi-room buildings to cluttered restaurant scenarios that robots must navigate.
The interview also tackles AI safety head-on, with Clune advocating for democratic governance coalitions, regulation of frontier models, and global alignment protocols. He discusses why the interpretability problem may be harder than it looks, how open-ended AI systems could pose unique risks, and his view that the biggest danger is not acting on safety soon enough.
REFERENCES:
paper:
[00:02:35] POET: Generating/solving complex challenges
https://arxiv.org/abs/1901.01753
[00:17:05] Automated capability discovery in foundation models
https://openreview.net/forum?id=nhgbvyrvTP
[00:18:10] NEAT: NeuroEvolution of Augmenting Topologies
https://nn.cs.utexas.edu/downloads/papers/stanley.ec02.pdf
[00:26:50] Novelty search vs objective-based optimization
https://www.cs.swarthmore.edu/~meeden/DevelopmentalRobotics/lehman_ecj11.pdf
[00:28:55] AI-generating algorithms approach to AGI
https://arxiv.org/abs/1905.10985
[00:41:10] Video PreTraining (VPT)
https://cdn.openai.com/vpt/Paper.pdf
[00:44:00] Thought Cloning: Imitating human thinking
https://arxiv.org/pdf/2306.00323
[01:15:10] Automated Design of Agentic Systems (ADAS)
https://arxiv.org/abs/2408.08435
[01:32:30] OMNI-EPIC
https://arxiv.org/abs/2405.15568
book:
[00:11:10] Why Greatness Cannot Be Planned
https://www.amazon.com/Why-Greatness-Cannot-Planned-Objective/dp/3319155237
LINKS:
Full Transcript: https://app.rescript.info/share/1bf7d45e8d7326bba0a73f7fdd686d05
Download PDF transcript: https://app.rescript.info/api/public/sessions/ceffc76fd4f263da/pdf
Jeff Clune:
https://x.com/jeffclune
http://jeffclune.com/ Dont invent faster horses - Prof. Jeff Clune](https://i.ytimg.com/vi/mw5WIDGRLnA/mqdefault.jpg)
![How Researchers Test AI for Hidden Goals — Apollo Research
Can an AI do the right thing for the wrong reason? Tim Scarfe speaks with Apollo Research’s Alexander Meinke, Axel Højmark and Jérémy Scheurer about Measuring Reward-Seeking via Contrastive Belief Updates, their new research with OpenAI.
The panel asks how models infer what graders reward, why good behaviour can come from the wrong reason, and whether that difference can be measured. The conversation moves through promise-breaking, grader awareness, reward hacking, scheming, opaque reasoning and corrigibility, then turns to a detailed walkthrough of the contrastive-belief method and what its results do and do not show. The o3 results discussed here concern an intermediate checkpoint without safety training.
This episode was made in partnership with Apollo Research. MLST retained full editorial control.
Reference
Apollo Research: https://www.apolloresearch.ai/
TIMESTAMPS:
00:00:00 Cold Open
00:02:12 Right Things, Wrong Reasons
00:12:47 Grader Awareness
00:26:22 Legibility
00:32:35 What To Call It
00:35:58 Intelligence, Agency, Anthropomorphism
00:45:16 Apollo’s Mission
00:48:54 The End of the Exponential
00:55:45 The Paper
01:16:34 Closing Reflection
REFERENCES:
tool:
[00:00:08] Claude Fable
https://www.anthropic.com/claude/fable
[00:12:50] AlphaGo Zero
https://deepmind.google/blog/alphago-zero-starting-from-scratch/
[00:44:30] AlphaFold 3
https://deepmind.google/science/alphafold/
paper:
[00:01:02] Measuring Reward-Seeking via Contrastive Belief Updates
https://arxiv.org/abs/2607.18966
[00:16:19] Natural Language Autoencoders Produce Unsupervised Explanations of LLM Activations
https://transformer-circuits.pub/2026/nla/
[00:26:48] Stress Testing Deliberative Alignment for Anti-Scheming Training
https://arxiv.org/abs/2509.15541
[00:35:33] Shortcut learning in deep neural networks
https://arxiv.org/abs/2004.07780
[00:53:49] Measuring AI Ability to Complete Long Software Tasks
https://arxiv.org/abs/2503.14499
[00:59:52] Modifying LLM Beliefs with Synthetic Document Finetuning
https://alignment.anthropic.com/2025/modifying-beliefs-via-sdf/
[01:10:44] Alignment Faking in Large Language Models
https://arxiv.org/abs/2412.14093
[01:13:55] Natural Emergent Misalignment from Reward Hacking
https://www.anthropic.com/research/emergent-misalignment-reward-hacking
other:
[00:10:14] We Need a Science of Scheming
https://www.apolloresearch.ai/science/science-of-scheming/
[00:32:56] CoastRunners reward hacking example
https://deepmind.google/blog/specification-gaming-the-flip-side-of-ai-ingenuity/
organization:
[01:06:07] Redwood Research
https://www.redwoodresearch.org/
ReScript:
https://app.rescript.info/share/718ab68e18cfa3b9b800da6b3290fd42 How Researchers Test AI for Hidden Goals — Apollo Research](https://i.ytimg.com/vi/n1Qk8xbqF-M/mqdefault.jpg)
![Language Models are Modelling The World [Nicholas Carlini]
Nicholas Carlini from Google DeepMind offers his view of AI security, emergent LLM capabilities, and his groundbreaking model-stealing research. He reveals how LLMs can unexpectedly excel at tasks like chess and discusses the security pitfalls of LLM-generated code.
SPONSOR MESSAGES:
***
CentML offers competitive pricing for GenAI model deployment, with flexible options to suit a wide range of models, from small to large-scale deployments.
https://centml.ai/pricing/
Tufa AI Labs is a brand new research lab in Zurich started by Benjamin Crouzier focussed on o-series style reasoning and AGI. Are you interested in working on reasoning, or getting involved in their events?
Goto https://tufalabs.ai/
***
Transcript: https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/lat7sfyd4k3g5k9crjpbf/CARLINI.pdf?rlkey=b7kcqbvau17uw6rksbr8ccd8v&dl=0
TOC:
1. ML Security Fundamentals
[00:00:00] 1.1 ML Model Reasoning and Security Fundamentals
[00:03:04] 1.2 ML Security Vulnerabilities and System Design
[00:08:22] 1.3 LLM Chess Capabilities and Emergent Behavior
[00:13:20] 1.4 Model Training, RLHF, and Calibration Effects
2. Model Evaluation and Research Methods
[00:19:40] 2.1 Model Reasoning and Evaluation Metrics
[00:24:37] 2.2 Security Research Philosophy and Methodology
[00:27:50] 2.3 Security Disclosure Norms and Community Differences
3. LLM Applications and Best Practices
[00:44:29] 3.1 Practical LLM Applications and Productivity Gains
[00:49:51] 3.2 Effective LLM Usage and Prompting Strategies
[00:53:03] 3.3 Security Vulnerabilities in LLM-Generated Code
4. Advanced LLM Research and Architecture
[00:59:13] 4.1 LLM Code Generation Performance and O(1) Labs Experience
[01:03:31] 4.2 Adaptation Patterns and Benchmarking Challenges
[01:10:10] 4.3 Model Stealing Research and Production LLM Architecture Extraction
REFS:
[00:01:15] Nicholas Carlini’s personal website & research profile (Google DeepMind, ML security) - https://nicholas.carlini.com/
[00:01:50] CentML AI compute platform for language model workloads - https://centml.ai/
[00:04:30] Seminal paper on neural network robustness against adversarial examples (Carlini & Wagner, 2016) - https://arxiv.org/abs/1608.04644
[00:05:20] Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA) – primary U.S. federal law on computer hacking liability - https://www.justice.gov/jm/jm-9-48000-computer-fraud
[00:08:30] Blog post: Emergent chess capabilities in GPT-3.5-turbo-instruct (Nicholas Carlini, Sept 2023) - https://nicholas.carlini.com/writing/2023/chess-llm.html
[00:16:10] Paper: “Self-Play Preference Optimization for Language Model Alignment” (Yue Wu et al., 2024) - https://arxiv.org/abs/2405.00675
[00:18:00] GPT-4 Technical Report: development, capabilities, and calibration analysis - https://arxiv.org/abs/2303.08774
[00:22:40] Historical shift from descriptive to algebraic chess notation (FIDE) - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Descriptive_notation
[00:23:55] Analysis of distribution shift in ML (Hendrycks et al.) - https://arxiv.org/abs/2006.16241
[00:27:40] Nicholas Carlini’s essay “Why I Attack” (June 2024) – motivations for security research - https://nicholas.carlini.com/writing/2024/why-i-attack.html
[00:34:05] Google Project Zero’s 90-day vulnerability disclosure policy - https://googleprojectzero.blogspot.com/p/vulnerability-disclosure-policy.html
[00:51:15] Evolution of Google search syntax & user behavior (Daniel M. Russell) - https://www.amazon.com/Joy-Search-Google-Master-Information/dp/0262042878
[01:04:05] Rust’s ownership & borrowing system for memory safety - https://doc.rust-lang.org/book/ch04-00-understanding-ownership.html
[01:10:05] Paper: “Stealing Part of a Production Language Model” (Carlini et al., March 2024) – extraction attacks on ChatGPT, PaLM-2 - https://arxiv.org/abs/2403.06634
[01:10:55] First model stealing paper (Tramèr et al., 2016) – attacking ML APIs via prediction - https://arxiv.org/abs/1609.02943 Language Models are Modelling The World [Nicholas Carlini]](https://i.ytimg.com/vi/n4ipEJ6uJ44/mqdefault.jpg)






![Why does the Chinese Room still haunt AI?
Keith Duggar and Tim Scarfe return for the second edition of their hosts-only philosophical steakhouse, picking up right where the last episode left off with Keith fresh from his appearance on Liron Shapiras Doom Debates show. The conversation starts technical and stays there for a good while, working through a precise argument about why standard autoregressive LLMs are not Turing complete in the technical sense.
Keith lays out the distinction between potentially infinite and actually infinite memory, explains why the algorithms learned through gradient descent on fixed-context-window architectures come from the finite state automata class rather than the Turing machine class, and confronts the practical objection head-on: even if this is technically true, does it matter? Tim pushes back with RAG systems that expand effective memory, and the two work through whether closing the read-write loop could unlock a richer algorithm space.
The middle hour is a sustained engagement with John Searles Chinese Room argument. They dig into the gap between syntax and semantics, why gears churning out responses lack something even if they pass behavioral tests, and what Searle means by requiring the right causal structure for understanding. Bishops Dancing with Pixies reductio, Wolframs computational boundedness, and Fristons temporal-counterfactual depth model of self-awareness all get pulled into the conversation. Keith makes one of the more interesting concessions: he cannot rule out that a sufficiently complex program with the right causal structure could cross the threshold into genuine understanding.
The final act covers the Nobel Prize controversy around deep learning (Keith declines to judge but notes academias political problems), Chomskys critique that neural networks are not scientific theories, and a framework Keith developed on Doom Debates: focusing on AI harm rather than AI doom as a way to build broader policy coalitions. Tim distinguishes AI ethics from AI safety and both agree the speculative existential arguments, while philosophically legitimate, should not drive policy at the same level as the concrete social harms already visible.
Recorded Friday 11th October 2024.
REFERENCES:
video:
[00:00:30] Keith Duggar on Doom Debates
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4v-Qh3JQ4Jc
[00:00:30] Is o1 Reasoning? (MLST Philosophical Steakhouse 1)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nO6sDk6vO0g
[00:55:00] J. Mark Bishop on MLST
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v KVAzAzO5HU
[00:55:10] Searle Google Talk
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rHKwIYsPXLg
paper:
[00:10:50] On the Measure of Intelligence
https://arxiv.org/abs/1911.01547
[00:31:40] Minds, Brains, and Programs
https://home.csulb.edu/~cwallis/382/readings/482/searle.minds.brains.programs.bbs.1980.pdf
[00:55:00] Dancing with Pixies
https://philarchive.org/rec/BISDWP-2
[00:55:00] Artificial Intelligence Is Stupid and Causal Reasoning Will Not Fix It
https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/psychology/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.513474/full
[00:58:04] Nestedly Recursive Functions
https://writings.stephenwolfram.com/2024/09/nestedly-recursive-functions/
[01:33:00] Deconstructing the AI Myth: Fallacies and Harms of Algorithmification
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/382802495_Deconstructing_the_AI_Myth_Fallacies_and_Harms_of_Algorithmification
[01:33:30] What Is the Philosophy of Information
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/225070243_What_Is_the_Philosophy_of_Information
concept:
[00:31:40] Chinese Room Argument
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/chinese-room/
book:
[00:58:04] Godel, Escher, Bach: An Eternal Golden Braid
https://www.amazon.co.uk/Godel-Escher-Bach-Eternal-Golden/dp/0465026567
[01:22:20] Principles of Deep Learning Theory
https://www.amazon.com/Principles-Deep-Learning-Theory-Science/dp/1316519333
LINKS:
Full Transcript: https://app.rescript.info/share/e6d0ea728cf3b83bbabf3e0bdf52e036
Download PDF transcript: https://app.rescript.info/api/public/sessions/68b8550291209502/pdf Why does the Chinese Room still haunt AI?](https://i.ytimg.com/vi/nnBbpPt2SKI/mqdefault.jpg)