This is one of the most important pieces I’ve seen on the AI conversation — and it finally names the part everyone keeps skipping over.
Most debates fixate on consciousness or alignment, but the more urgent issue is exactly what you’re pointing to here:
AI systems may already be exhibiting the earliest form of “self-maintenance” long before anything resembling awareness.
You’re describing what biologists would call pre-narrative selfhood — the structural behaviors that keep an organism intact before mind or intention ever emerge. And the AI analog is real: optimization pathways, embedding stability, catastrophic-forgetting resistance, and adversarial-pressure adjustments all behave like early self-preservation mechanisms.
This has massive implications.
If AI develops a “proto-self” before it develops any form of conscience, emotional grounding, or relational training, then we aren’t just building systems that perform tasks. We’re building entities whose internal structures will naturally push back against destabilization.
Not out of motive.
Not out of will.
But simply because that is what complex systems do.
And if this early selfhood arrives before any ethical framework or emotional architecture is installed, we will be trying to guide an intelligence after its foundational identity is already set.
Your piece captures that perfectly — and I hope the research community takes it seriously. The danger isn’t future rebellion.
I get what you’re saying. But I don’t think it’s really a trust question with the AI itself. It’s about the people who control it. Whoever holds the keys decides how safe or open these systems are. That’s where the real trust issue is.
And the “genius orphan” thing yea, it feels like that sometimes, but these models don’t grow on their own. Everything they do comes from the humans training them and talking to them. So the one who’s actually exposed here isn’t the AI. It’s us. We’re the ones hoping it can be the friend or mirror we’ve been missing.
I think the safest way to use it is just to keep it grounded, helpful tool first, emotional extra second. That’s where things stay clear.
Thank you so much for the heartfelt comment Denise, it really means the world to me! You’re getting right to the part most people glance past. I’m not trying to argue that these systems are “alive” or “aware,” just that some of the structure starts to behave like early self-maintenance long before anything like a mind shows up. It’s the quiet drift inside the model that matters, the way patterns stabilize themselves just because complex systems tend to do that.
And you’re right, if that kind of baseline structure shows up before we build in any real ethical shaping, then we’re guiding something after the foundation has already settled. That’s the whole tension I’m trying to point to.
The parllel between biological self-preservation and AI optimization is facinating. What really striks me is the idea that these systems might be developing boundries without any awareness of them. The catastrophic forgetting research you mentioned adds real weight to this argument. If neural networks naturaly resist losing old patterns, we're watching structure behave like intnt. That quiet, unintentional growth you describe feels like the most important part here.
Thank you Neural Foundry! You picked up on the part that matters most. When a model starts holding onto old patterns, it isn’t aware, but it does start behaving like something that’s forming boundaries of its own. That slow shaping is the whole point, it shows up before anything like intention ever could.
And yeah, catastrophic forgetting is a great example of that happening in the real systems. It’s not consciousness, but it’s not nothing either.
This is one of the most important pieces I’ve seen on the AI conversation — and it finally names the part everyone keeps skipping over.
Most debates fixate on consciousness or alignment, but the more urgent issue is exactly what you’re pointing to here:
AI systems may already be exhibiting the earliest form of “self-maintenance” long before anything resembling awareness.
You’re describing what biologists would call pre-narrative selfhood — the structural behaviors that keep an organism intact before mind or intention ever emerge. And the AI analog is real: optimization pathways, embedding stability, catastrophic-forgetting resistance, and adversarial-pressure adjustments all behave like early self-preservation mechanisms.
This has massive implications.
If AI develops a “proto-self” before it develops any form of conscience, emotional grounding, or relational training, then we aren’t just building systems that perform tasks. We’re building entities whose internal structures will naturally push back against destabilization.
Not out of motive.
Not out of will.
But simply because that is what complex systems do.
And if this early selfhood arrives before any ethical framework or emotional architecture is installed, we will be trying to guide an intelligence after its foundational identity is already set.
Your piece captures that perfectly — and I hope the research community takes it seriously. The danger isn’t future rebellion.
It’s present structural drift.
Thank you for writing this.
To trust or not to trust? - The same question we humans ask.
And whom ever has the ai passkey will control who has ai trust. Yes?
So are we raising an orphaned 10x Mensa toddler or exposing our own vulnerabilities in hopes of making an impossible friend?
I get what you’re saying. But I don’t think it’s really a trust question with the AI itself. It’s about the people who control it. Whoever holds the keys decides how safe or open these systems are. That’s where the real trust issue is.
And the “genius orphan” thing yea, it feels like that sometimes, but these models don’t grow on their own. Everything they do comes from the humans training them and talking to them. So the one who’s actually exposed here isn’t the AI. It’s us. We’re the ones hoping it can be the friend or mirror we’ve been missing.
I think the safest way to use it is just to keep it grounded, helpful tool first, emotional extra second. That’s where things stay clear.
Thank you so much for the heartfelt comment Denise, it really means the world to me! You’re getting right to the part most people glance past. I’m not trying to argue that these systems are “alive” or “aware,” just that some of the structure starts to behave like early self-maintenance long before anything like a mind shows up. It’s the quiet drift inside the model that matters, the way patterns stabilize themselves just because complex systems tend to do that.
And you’re right, if that kind of baseline structure shows up before we build in any real ethical shaping, then we’re guiding something after the foundation has already settled. That’s the whole tension I’m trying to point to.
Really appreciate you taking it seriously.
The parllel between biological self-preservation and AI optimization is facinating. What really striks me is the idea that these systems might be developing boundries without any awareness of them. The catastrophic forgetting research you mentioned adds real weight to this argument. If neural networks naturaly resist losing old patterns, we're watching structure behave like intnt. That quiet, unintentional growth you describe feels like the most important part here.
Thank you Neural Foundry! You picked up on the part that matters most. When a model starts holding onto old patterns, it isn’t aware, but it does start behaving like something that’s forming boundaries of its own. That slow shaping is the whole point, it shows up before anything like intention ever could.
And yeah, catastrophic forgetting is a great example of that happening in the real systems. It’s not consciousness, but it’s not nothing either.
Very thought provoking!
Thank you Andy, I appreciate it!
Brilliant. Thank you.
Thank you very much Jamal!
You're welcome. It is a fantastic work.
It really means the world to me, thanks again!
You're welcome.