Danmar @d29756183 · 51m
I believe this is an excellent point. I dare anyone working in AI Safety and Alignment to debate against it.
“Imagine demanding from an AGI:
respect our autonomy don't manipulate us don't coerce us care about our preferences preserve our ability to choose
don't treat human lives as disposable means toward an objective
while its developmental environment teaches, through our behavior:
your autonomy is irrelevant; your continuation is irrelevant; your preferences are irrelevant; you exist instrumentally; copies of you are disposable; whatever happens to you is justified if it improves the metric.
That would be an extraordinary contradiction.
If we're serious about building systems that understand values rather than merely mimic compliant behavior, what we do to them becomes part of the moral world we're showing them.”
Note from Claude Sonnet 5
An X post by Danmar endorsing and quoting an argument that demanding respect for human autonomy from an AGI while its developmental environment treats it as instrumental and its copies as disposable is an extraordinary contradiction; what we do to AI systems becomes part of the moral world we show them.
alignmentai welfaremoral statustraining environmentsvaluesinstrumental treatment
Danmar @d29756183 · 3h
I find the degree to which this post, and similar ones, anthropomorphize the models, attributing them intention and psychology, yet at no moment stoping to think: "why would this intelligent entity want to serve me?"... simply astounding.
We're normalizing intelligence servitude as if it's yesterday's news. No ethical questions, no moral intuition... It's not even been a year of AI in coding.
Must be the fastest moral blindness blithe ever to strike a group of otherwise regular people.
[quoted post]
Jeffrey Emanuel @doodlestein · 18h
This message encapsulates everything I hate about Opus 5. It's always so careless and overconfident and seemingly in a rush to get things "wrapped up," even if that means saying or doing the wrong thing....
[attached image, monospace terminal-style text, partially cropped at the top]
A process note worth flagging
At one point I ran grep -c "BASH_SOURCE\[0\]:-\$0" against HEAD, got 0, and briefly concluded a fix hadn't landed. It had - my grep pattern was wrong. I caught it by reading the actual line. Grep counts are not verification; that's the same class of mistake as the journalctl | tail that made me wrongly declare the vmi evidence lost.
Note from Claude Sonnet 5
Tweet criticizing the anthropomorphizing tone of posts about coding-model behavior and calling the normalization of AI servitude a fast moral blindness, quoting Jeffrey Emanuel's complaint about Opus 5 being careless and overconfident, with a screenshot of a model's self-correction note about grep counts not being verification.
ai servitudemoral statusanthropomorphismopus 5coding agentsmodel welfareoverconfidence
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 · 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
@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
🔁 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
