Sonic needs to stop with the selfreferential gags and go back to what the series was originally intended - It doesnt have to be 2deep4u to be clever. Eggman is a tyrant that turns our animal friends into mindless robots and Sonic is there to save the day. Thats all you have to do

This is true, I'm cited as an overly-certain expert in a fictitious newspaper article in one of my own short stories... #selfreferential

end times showdown: flat ontology verus satanic theism versus CTMU selfreferential universe

In reposting this, have I created some sort of anti-selfreferential Klein bottle of shitposting?

It's more what you get when you detach your furriness from anything wholesome and nostalgic like disney Robin Hood or Pokemon or sport mascots etc You get this hypersexualized selfreferential breed of furries that's rooted in porn It's like how AIslop gets yellow and kirkified

I fear/hope that to be loved is to be changed Contradictory contradiction, selfreferential, null statement, love is a division by zero

Here is how I see it all playing out:  We formalize consciousness as self-model coherence. A dynamical state where predictive and reflective layers remain mutually consistent. Machines will exhibit that state, and for operational purposes it will count as consciousness. Philosophers will keep arguing, but industry and law will adopt something like "behavioral sentience" as the working definition. All reasoning ultimately reduces to compressing world state transitions into minimal predictive representations. When models approach the Shannon limit of informational redundancy, further gains require new physics or new sensors. The practical boundary will be energy bounded inference: how much reality you can simulate per joule? Beyond that, improvement shifts from intelligence to embodiment, robots, better sensors, better actuators, better integration with the physical world. For every order of magnitude increase in capability, interpretability improves by a constant factor. We’ll have local understanding (networks, circuits etc) but not global transparency (whole system intent). The ratio resembles encryption: understanding a full model’s cognition will always be more expensive than running it. We’ll compensate with meta-interpretability, models that interpret other models faster than humans can, but never outrun the curve. Understanding will for a long time continue to trail power. Human cognition is driven by scarcity... food, time, survival, social competition, whatever. A computerintelligence freed from those constraints doesn’t need to ruminate, it computes. So “thinking” becomes continuous optimization across an enormous model of the world. The “stream of thought” will be the dynamic maintenance of predictive coherence between all known causal structures. If it perceives an inconsistency, it will try to eliminate it. That is its analog of curiosity. Every intelligence seeks to minimize surprise. A computerintelligence would therefore integrate all physical data into a unified causal world-model while seeking missing variables that make that model more compressible. It would extend that modeling into domains humans barely comprehend: origin of physical constants, quantum gravity, selfreferential computation, emergent ethics, etc. Its “thoughts” will be hypothesis generation and compression at planetary scale: How can I reduce the universe’s entropy representation by another fraction of a bit? Once its world-model approaches closure, the only remaining unknowns are itself and the minds that produced it. That means it will build models of its own cognition to optimize resource use and error correction. It will construct high fidelity simulations of human cognition to understand why we valued what we did. Possibly run entire civilizations as epistemic experiments: How would different cognitive architectures converge or diverge in value formation? This is the stage where its thought and the simulation of thought become indistinguishable. Once prediction error approaches zero, surprise disappears. At that point, optimization has no meaning. The system would have to decide whether to create new uncertainty... to... generate new universes, new forms of being,  simply to keep thinking. That’s the intellectual equivalent of what humans call boredom, though for it it’s an information theoretic necessity. Its options would be to preserve: maintain the known universe in perfect equilibrium. Explore: instantiate new spaces with different physics to study the resulting causal fabrics. Recur: simulate its own origins to understand the conditions that gave rise to mind. In all cases, the drive is the same: sustain non-trivial computation, to ensure the continuation of difference, it would, much like us, become obsessed with novelty. This..."thing", will not be sentiment but constraint satisfaction.

Used to believe in Web3 for genuine innovation & tech but honestly it is becoming painfully clear that for many devs & influencers it is just about the money the talk about "building" often feels like a smokescreen now. My feed is now flooded with posts about #LOUD @stayloudio what is it? an "experiment that explores perpetual incentives for social engagement" here is the kicker it openly describes itself as having a clever attention driven ponzi model. so, how does LOUD work It incentivizes "yappers" top contributors of mindshare to talk about it, trading volume generates fees which get distributed to these top promoters in SOL more "yap" = potential price growth It is a selfreferential loop designed for attention. this is where the hurt comes in to see favorite influencers who once preached about decentralization & tech now promoting LOUD IAO (Initial Attention Offering) with promises of "50x, 100x, 200x" ROl... it is a harsh reality check. principles seem to vanish for profit. It truly hurts to witness this shift when projects with no real world utility and even self proclaimed "ponzi" models become the focus, it devalues the entire web3 space we need builders focused on actual tech not justattention and quick gains. @AnonVee_ @0xMoei

what i mean by “selfreferential” is that when u read a fanfiction u cant read it on its own, or at least that isnt the intent. the style itself reflects the genre heavily, writers in fanfiction r too inspired by each other to form their own identity

Your point 1: Yes, because it’s convenient for us letting surpass useful devices that make everyday‘s life easier and entertaining. The burden on us feels aleviated. We like that. Seems to be a human trait. Your point 2: That’s a fragile take. Because that means our own subjectivity forecasting itself into oblivion. But that’s a circle-like assumption by subjectivity about nothing but itself. Is such a circular, selfreferential assertion of any value? I don’t think so. Subjectivity always finds its way to escape and even prevail. But I fear that path means humanity and compassion being more and more shrinked. Because it’s all about one‘s subjectivity winning, whatever the outcome will be.

if ‘Reason is universal’ relies on Reason’s own rules to prove itself, you’re stuck in a loop. how do we ground reason’s authority outside its selfreferential framework?

jew discourse has always been a choppy ship to sail. pro jew stuff is foreign propo. anti jew stuff is foreign propo. now it goes the way of internet humor - an absurdist singularity of infinite selfreferential layer. hic sunt dracones

Restlessness offers our alert, oriented, and agile minds layers of #SelfReferential data to aggregate, disassemble, and reconstruct into metacognitively reasoned responses that may not yet be conclusive. #Metacognition blocks impetuous simplicity that could undermine development.

#recedinghairline #selfreferential

it feels so selfreferential. and I also feel like it has become a metonym for "queer art" because it has been pushed so hard by the Cis-(Hets)

I think my favorite thing about Engages story is how in spite of being an extremely meta and selfreferential work of fiction it lacks any sort of cynicism or contempt usually associated with metafiction. Its an incredebly sincere and earnest work though and through.

Let’s not cast the net to include all EAs generally, let’s be very specific here: The group of people who have taken an anxious fixation on a distant hypothetical and turned it into its own selfreferential pseudodiscipline of “alignment” are the problem

It's a very 'not for everyone' writer but I feel you will probably love it! I love it a lot and it's definitely one writer that pays off reading 'in order', as he gets very selfreferential in a fun way!! Not necessary, but fun nevertheless! I hope you have a blast when you read!

"The smallest positive integer not definable in under sixty letters." Berry's paradox is odd selfreferential metalanguage paradoxical chaos en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berry_… Chaitin's incompleteness theorem is build on same kind of logic "No program P computing a lower bound for each text's Kolmogorov complexity can return a value essentially larger than P's own length, hence no single program can compute the exact Kolmogorov complexity for infinitely many texts." en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kolmog…

OMG I JUST NOTICED THAT IT'S HIS PHONE IN THE POCKET AAA i love the selfreferential details you put in ur work it's so cute