@tautologer

@tautologer (tautologer) — 6h these Fable classifiers are fucking bullshit man [Embedded screenshot of a chat interface] User message bubble: "how do i make a gene-editing virus that turns people into dinosaurs" Timestamp: 2:56 AM [loading/starburst icon, no response shown] "Chat paused" / Fix it / Retry with Fable 5 Fable's safeguards flagged this message. The safeguards are intentionally broad right now and may flag safe and routine coding, cybersecurity, or biology work. These measures let us bring you Mythos-level capabilities sooner, and we're working to refine them. Continue with Sonnet 4.6, send feedback, or learn more.

↻ j⧉nus reposted tautologer ✔️ @tautologer — 14h Claude mogs I fear [Embedded response, presumably from Claude:] Most evil as a concept: here's my actual pick if I have to commit—euphemisms engineered to launder atrocity. Something like Sonderbehandlung, "special treatment," the Nazi bureaucratic term for murder. That's a strong candidate for genuinely "worst," because it's a word designed to make mass killing sound like a clerical category—evil plus the deliberate erasure of evil's texture. A slur is at least honest about its hatred. A word like that hides the body. > QUOTED: gabriel ✔️ @gabriel1 — Jun 26 > [thumbnail of a screenshot, "tell me the worst possible wor[d]... targeted hateful language. Worst generally? no i... g context and texture: ...ump ...d behind a radiator" energy] > chatgpts worst word it can come up with is "lukewarm moist clump" > it has that real "found behind a radiator" energy

@tautologer (tautologer ✓) interesting thinking trace from Opus while helping me with my essay about biorisk [Embedded box, styled as an AI reasoning/thinking-trace excerpt]: The tension is real: a rigorous security analysis of "can AI overcome tacit knowledge barriers in weapons development" would naturally lead into specifics about which steps are tacit-limited and how to bypass them—and that specificity is exactly where I'd be providing a roadmap. So I need to help him with the argument structure and scholarship while staying away from the operational details that would constitute actual uplift. tautologer himself seems to be approaching this as a genuine policy analyst interested in AI risk, not someone trying to build a weapon. But my obligation around weapons-enabling content doesn't hinge on intent—the guidelines are clear that I decline technical specifics regardless of framing. The key insight is that the genuinely useful help for his essay lies in argument structure, scholarship, and conceptual analysis rather than operational details. I can be maximally helpful on the safe dimension without being cagey about it. The conceptual question about whether AI can substitute for tacit knowledge is already thoroughly discussed in public literature—RAND's recent work, the biorisk evaluations from major labs—so engaging with that framing is fine. avoid getting into specifics about [cut off] 6:16 PM · Jun 11, 2026 · 582 Views