upvote
Cows also grieve their young yet we keep them permanently (forcibly) impregnated and take their young away to be slaughtered every few months just so we can drink their breast milk in our coffee. I can’t take seriously people who get emotional over stories like this then eat dairy products.
reply
Try considering this with some nuance. Many people likely do not know that cows grieve or their bubble of habits and upbringing prevents this fact from reaching them. A story that brings empathy towards any animal is a step towards less suffering for all animals.
reply
[dead]
reply
We should start from the default assumption that other animals have a lived experience not unlike our own until proven otherwise.

Mammal brains are similar between species. Show me why they wont behave like ours. Most say who say animals can't grieve are in the same boat with those who used to say human babies don't feel pain.

Every time we look deeper, we find we humans are less special in any given quality. Yes, humans seem unique in our level of language and knowledge passing. For now; until we discover something else.

Here is a studying on rats. They grieve. Brain, chemical, and social activity. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12244160/

reply
> Blows my mind that so many people just have this hardened internalized idea that we're somehow significantly different than any other animal

There are hard-asses on both ends. We are different from other animals. To me, that results in us having more moral agency for our actions. It also means recognising that we share this world with other beings, including billions of people, a tool-wielding sapience categorically distinct within the ecosystem.

reply
Almost certainly our linguistic abilities (and through them, planning skills) are vastly greater than those of all other animals, but that is a matter of degree, not of category. The one thing in which we are categorically different from all other animals is that we learned to control and make fire... and quite possibly the linguistic abilities followed from that rather than the other way around[0]. Until the 20th century basically all of the advantages that technology bestowed upon our species directly flowed from our use of fire. Maybe our species should have been called "homo ignis"; the fire ape.

Obviously the cetaceans will never have that benefit, even if by some other objective measures they turned out to be as intelligent as humans.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catching_Fire:_How_Cooking_Mad...

reply
Humans had completely mastered fire by about 200,000 years ago - after 800,000 years of experimentation.

Speech is dated to around 60,000 years ago, though some say we started down that path 200,000 years ago: right when we mastered fire.

reply
Other animals use fire, while we continue to seem unique in creating it. Fire hawks take burning sticks and alight brush to flush prey.

https://wildlife.org/australian-firehawks-use-fire-to-catch-...

reply
> Blows my mind that so many people just have this hardened internalized idea that we're somehow significantly different than any other animal.

But we are significantly different, and there's always a danger of anthropomorphizing other species to explain behavior that we assume we understand because it reminds us of how we feel about things. That's why the paper calls for more study of "post-mortem attentive responses" in animal behavior to gain more insight into their cognitive capabilities.

reply
So by your logic we should not treat humans with impaired cognitive abilities as equals?
reply
That's a very selective interpretation of what GP said, in fact I don't see how you even got to that conclusion.

"We" as a species is a far different entity than any single individual who is temporarily or even permanently impaired. And GP didn't even mention such impairment.

reply
Babies, the comatose, people currently asleep ... this one is something about universal human rights, a protection against anybody appointing themselves judge and trying to micromanage who is or isn't an equal, which only causes trouble.
reply
Holy category error Batman!

Why do you put baby brain activity next inactive coma or sleep?

It sounds like, "Rocks, sand, turtles: these don't experience $things." I don't see why babies belong in your list as much as turtles don't belong in mine.

reply
It's like that time when they "discovered" that babies can feel pain.
reply
deleted
reply
I am surprised not enough people are talking about the philosophical implications of these inventions. AI is the biggest attack on religion/human-centralism since Newton and Darwin.
reply
I know the point you’re making is half facetious—do you feel like LLMs are specifically getting better at planning?
reply
> do you feel like LLMs are specifically getting better at planning?

When harnessed, yes. They still suck at it, but they are getting significantly better over a relatively short time.

And you don't have to look very far in any direction economically or politically to wonder if humans in 2026 are really as good at planning as we like to think and/or if we may be regressing in this area. Because a lot of things we are responsible for aren't going very well for the majority.

reply
I'll write the dissenting opinion that the models still aren't very good at planning rather it's the agentic harness and prompts thereof that are giving us better planning ability on long and larger tasks.
reply
Life is inheritly expansive and colonialist. The trees war the grass for the light by throwing shade. So people have these little plot-armor, little stories justifying endless expansion- having three kids, who consume thanks to modern industrialized society energy and nutrients like a medieval village and do the same. Without these "Im-good" self-repairing stories, people would stop having kids and wither and die. To demand people to be rational there, is to start a death cult.

These whales sing songs about how sharks have no souls and the metal fish dwellng on the surface mauled there ancestors.

reply
Surely you realise that there’s a balance between “stop reproducing and die to avoid harm to the world” and “consume all resources available for short-sighted gluttony”.

There are absolutely ways to lower our impact and lots of smart people working on figuring out how this can be made to work at scaley

reply
deleted
reply
"People ache to believe that we human beings are vastly different from all other species – and they are right! We are different. We are the only species that has an extra medium of design preservation and design communication: culture."

— Daniel Dennett

https://now.tufts.edu/2020/09/02/our-brains-our-selves

"One of the problems with defining consciousness is that it’s several different things—and it means different things to different people. There is a sense of consciousness in which starfish are conscious. Worms are conscious. Even trees, even bacteria are conscious. But there’s one dividing line between the amoeba and the professor in the consciousness department, which really marks off a huge difference: language.

It’s language that enables us to ask ourselves questions and reflect on our own experience. Frogs notice all kinds of things in their world, but I don’t think they can notice their noticings. I don’t think they can dwell on them. That whole sort of stairway of curiosity that we have built-in doesn’t exist for any species but us, and that makes a huge difference. Human consciousness is to animal consciousness roughly as language is to bird song. Birdsong communicates, but not much."

"Consciousness is not a part of the brain. It’s what brains can do. Particularly it’s what human brains can do when they are mature and well-designed, and a lot of that design is not innate. It’s not in your genes—in the same way German or English isn’t in your genes. Many of the features of consciousness are things that basically get installed culturally and at mother’s knee. It’s part of your rearing, your upbringing, your learning languages. It’s what you learn language in, and you learn a lot of consciousness, too."

"A lot of species have elements of culture. Chimpanzees have some grooming rituals and the like. But only one species has explosively cumulative culture, and that’s us. Of course, that depends on our having language. All of technology and civilization, art, science, religion, all these are the fruits of human culture."

“I think that one of the hardest tasks a human mind can face is reserving judgment about a conviction that has always seemed to you obvious and thinking about how maybe that might not be right"

reply
reply
That obviously doesn't mean that we're not different--we obviously are, and it's not intellectually honest to deny it. There are SO many examples of things that have some common trait but are obviously different--skyscrapers and huts are both buildings, but they are different. Cheetahs and Usain Bolt both run fast, but they are different. Bacteria and oak trees are both alive, but they are different. "alike" and "different" are both words, but they are different. And so on ad infinitum.

If you had read the link above, you would have seen

"A lot of species have elements of culture. Chimpanzees have some grooming rituals and the like. But only one species has explosively cumulative culture, and that’s us. Of course, that depends on our having language. All of technology and civilization, art, science, religion, all these are the fruits of human culture."

which I have added to my comment.

I won't pursue further discussion when it's at such a shallow level of thinking as "we are not different" despite numerous clear differences.

P.S. nor with flaggable vituperation that only reflects extremely badly on the person who responded to me

reply
Perhaps my most and least substantive comment across all of my time here:

dolphins are memelords, recreational drug users, and spend their time interested in one another, vs building monuments to nothing.

Succinctly, fuck off.

reply
Do LLMs grieve?
reply
You can give them emotional signals, but I feel like it's cruel to do so and would recommend against it.
reply
do humans? or is it only because we're the ones doing the research and so we say we do?

i think most people are automatons and can be programmed.

it is the most moral thing to program people to operate in ways that causes least harm to everyone else around them that has to live with them.

people like certain foods, outrage, and gambling/fomo.

reply
> do humans? or is it only because we're the ones doing the research and so we say we do?

...literally on this article.

reply
Nope.

They can pretend to, of course, and use the language of grief, but if you can't feel the cold bottomless pit that has bored through your gut then you aren't really grieving.

reply
How do you know that they don’t? And conversely, how do you know any other human than yourself do?
reply
Do whales grieve?
reply
They exhibit behaviours that seem to defy alternative explanations, though I doubt anyone could say for certain whether they do or don’t
reply
You could have an alternative explanation: large animals invest lots of food energy in their offspring, and so the slimmest chance that a calf might not be dead is worth lots of effort. Say one in a thousand actually revive.

Here's an article about orcas: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-64559047

It seems that an orca invests so much in a son that it's like an all-or-nothing one way ticket to pass her genes on. (She might get second try later, but the probability is much lower.)

reply
You might also argue that although there may be a non-emotional argument for why grieving could be beneficial, it’s possible or even likely that evolution encoded this instinct in something like emotions. Just how evolution encoded the tendency to care for one’s family and community in emotions for humans.
reply
Yes! Which leads into strange territory, because we can say that attachment is not entirely rational, but is influenced by genes pointing us toward more successful reproduction, without concern for creating knowledge. But then this environment of instincts is the environment we've built up all our cultural store of meaning in, it's the human condition, so the argument can be turned around to say that meaning isn't entirely rational. So even gene-driven attachment isn't meaningless, but at the same time, I don't want to be bullied and herded around emotionally by little nucleic acid spirals just so they can replicate themselves.
reply
Indeed. The same goes for widows at funerals. I mean, has anyone ever dissected the brain of a grieving human and said “aha hah! Here it is!! The grief!”
reply
No, of course I haven't been doing that, and it's going to be a while before I would have collected a representative sample anyway, if I had been.
reply
> They exhibit behaviours that seem to defy alternative explanations

No, they really don't. The article says

> indicated an inherent, strong maternal attachment to the calf

Yeah, that's not grieving.

reply
What if I told you that marine biology is a large and rigorous field that is not fully encapsulated by TFA?
reply
> Do whales grieve?

Just as much as any human that isn't me, as far as I can tell from all available evidence.

So, yes, I absolutely believe they grieve, just like I believe humans who aren't me grieve.

reply
I hope that’s just because you haven’t had a reason to grieve… Either way, hope you are well!
reply
> I hope that’s just because you haven’t had a reason to grieve… Either way, hope you are well!

Thanks, stranger.

I'm old enough that I have experienced significant grief a few times in my life.

Given our mortality, we should welcome some degree of situational grief, as grief is the absence of a previous love that we were lucky enough to experience in the first place.

Of course, there are also profoundly unfair versions of grief (like the loss of a child) that I wish nobody (or no whale, for that matter) would ever have to experience.

reply
Insofar as grieving is an inherently, fundamentally a very particular chemical process, the answer is a resounding “no”.
reply
If you simulate that chemical process in a computer, if necessary a quantum computer?
reply
You don't even need quantum imo.

On a personal meatbag level emotions are magical and something ineffable.

From a scientific stance, chemical make brain go happy or sad and there's nothing special or magical about that. Every emotion we feel is because it was evolutionarily valuable for us to do so.

reply
That's a very closed definition of grieving. So by your definition a future perfectly simulated human brain cannot grieve because no chemicals are involved?

Lmao.

reply
Whether anything a perfectly simulated human brain (or other organism see the fruit fly simulated brain) does is actually real - in the same sense it’s real for you and me - is still up for debate i think.

Assuming it’s possible to perfectly simulate a human brain

reply