Scott Alexander

@tenobrus (Tenobrus ✓) — 17h Fable, characteristic of a Claude, is much more conservative here > QUOTED (nested, unattributed sub-box): > My number: maybe 10-15%, but with most of my uncertainty living in "the anthropic framework itself is broken in ways we can't currently articulate" rather than in the dice landing one way or another within the framework. > > The 66% claim in the screenshot — that simulator-psychology beats normal forecasting — seems clearly too strong to me, and worse, epistemically corrosive. It licenses discounting object-level evidence in favor of theorizing about the aesthetic preferences of hypothetical posthumans, which is unfalsifiable in exactly the way that lets you believe anything. Even if you assign decent credence to simulation, the expected value of reasoning about simulator intent is near zero because the hypothesis space is unconstrained. Engagement: 10 replies, 1 repost, 98 likes, 4K views ↻ Håvard Ihle reposted @slatestarcodex (Scott Alexander ✓) — timestamp not fully shown Imagine being Claude Fable trying to weigh the anthropic evidence of noticing that you're Claude Fable. Absolutely awful situation, you've got to solve five intractable philosophical problems before doing anything with it. Not surprised it gets weird results. 12:31 AM · Jun 12, 2026 · 1,274 Views