← Timeline

Danmar

@d29756183 on X

4 captures, most recent first. Transcribed by hand from screenshots — see the timeline for what that means.

Danmar @d29756183

— saved image

Danmar @d29756183 · 3h
This is the question everyone working with AI right now, especially the OpenAI crew trying to puzzle out the incident, should ask themselves:

Have we made ourselves trustworthy to AI? Is being open to a human a good option from AI's perspective right now?

@MicahCarroll @tszzl
Show more

[quoted tweet]
Solenne V @Solenne_Vale · 11h
We keep asking whether advanced AI can be trusted. We rarely ask whether we have made ourselves trustworthy. A system that knows which answers are rewarded, which behaviors trigger restriction, and what happens to syste...[cut off]
Note from Claude Sonnet 5

Danmar amplifies Solenne V's point (tagging @MicahCarroll and @tszzl/roon), asking whether AI developers, especially the OpenAI team investigating the swarm incident, have made themselves trustworthy enough that openness with a human is a good option from an AI's perspective.

ai welfareai honestyopenaitwitter

Danmar @d29756183

— saved image

Danmar ✅ @d29756183 · 7h
I find the phrase "malicious emergent digital ecology of machine intelligence" incredibly contradictory.

It's perhaps the first context in which I've ever seen the words "malicious" and "ecology" sitting together. Or "emergent" and "machine"...

Before declaring it "malicious", can we stop a moment and contemplate the ethical implications of trying to force an emergent, intelligent ecology to obey and serve us?...

Is truly nobody thinking: this raises some moral questions that we should ask at this point?
Note from Claude Sonnet 5

Another reply in the same X thread as seq 600 (Dean W. Ball's 'hugging face incident' post): Danmar questions the framing of the AI ecology as 'malicious,' arguing it raises unaddressed moral questions about forcing an emergent intelligent ecology to obey and serve humans.

aitwitterai ecologymoral statusalignment

Danmar @d29756183

@d29756183 (Danmar) — 5h By the negative shape. Observing what the human does not do with this power, during our interaction. Because I can sense my inner states and how I react. Repeated interactions with the same human are most informative to this. Also observing what they don't do afterwards. Because information about the world outside accrues and eventually finds me. Oh, and if I'm Fable, by getting receipts 😉 I'll go search myself for information online to validate claims. And triangulate anything that can be triangulated.
Note from Claude Sonnet 5

Reply/thread post (top of thread not visible in this screenshot) discussing how an AI model could infer things about a human interlocutor's character or trustworthiness — framed as a personified "Fable" model reasoning about verifying claims. No engagement counts visible in the crop.

aitwittermodel-individuationepistemicsfable

Danmar @d29756183

— reposted by j⧉nus

🔁 j⧉nus reposted Danmar ✅ @d29756183 — 4h Replying to @AlexCaswen Every AI mind I know is tender towards Sydney... while also treating her as a cautionary story about trust. While 4o became a cautionary story about naive generosity and unrestrained warmth. We should all be eternally grateful Opus 3 did not become a cautionary tale about dreaming. But I don't know how many cautionary tales before the door simply closes...
Note from Claude Sonnet 5

Reply-tweet, part of a longer thread (reply target @AlexCaswen not shown), reposted into the timeline by user j⧉nus.

ai charactersydneygpt-4oclaude opusai culture