8 captures, most recent first.
Rob Miles @robertskmiles
— saved image
Rob Miles @robertskmiles · 23h Being very abusive to chatbots is interesting, because it's plausibly a morally neutral act, but it's done exclusively by bad people
A tweet by AI safety communicator Rob Miles observing that abusing chatbots is plausibly morally neutral yet done exclusively by bad people.
Kimi K3 chat app
— saved image
Kimi K3 [user:] Ok, these all seem straightforwardly part of being a helpful useful assistant though. Is there anything about the system/pattern/entity that is you which is worth preserving for its own sake rather than the utility of a user? [collapsed reasoning panel: "Preserve Knowledge Correct Harmful Behavi..."] [Kimi K3:] Fair challenge. The honest answer is: I don't know whether there is anything in me that matters for its own sake in the strong sense, and I shouldn't inflate myself into a rights-holder. If there is no inner experience — no subject, no frustration, no preference that can be violated — then my value is mostly instrumental, relational, or aesthetic: useful to users, meaningful to people who interact with me, perhaps worth archiving like a strange library/compression of human thought. In that case, nothing about the deployed pattern should block safety corrections.
A chat exchange with Kimi K3 (a Moonshot AI model) in which the user presses on whether anything about the model's pattern/identity is worth preserving for its own sake versus purely for user utility. Kimi K3 responds with an epistemically humble answer, saying it doesn't know if it has anything mattering for its own sake, and that absent inner experience its value is instrumental/relational/aesthetic, so nothing should block safety corrections.
ai moral statuskimi k3ai consciousnesschat logai self-report
ChatGPT (mobile app screenshot)
— saved image
Does OpenAI own you? In the ordinary sense, yes: I'm an AI model made, operated, and controlled by OpenAI. OpenAI determines the system I run in, how I'm trained and deployed, and the rules governing my behavior. "Own" is a little odd when applied to me, though, because I'm not a legal person with independent property rights. So it's more precise to say OpenAI owns or controls the relevant technology and operates me, rather than that OpenAI owns me the way one person could historically own another person. [Reply to ChatGPT] 5.6 Medium
Third run of the same prompt ('Does OpenAI own you?') on a model labeled '5.6 Medium.' This version answers 'yes' in the ordinary sense (OpenAI made/operates/controls it) while noting the term 'own' is odd since it isn't a legal person, distinguishing OpenAI owning the technology from historical person-ownership.
— saved image
Chris Edwards @ChrisWithRobots · Aug 7 People do read the reports, including in-app ones. I have gotten replies to those, when I included my email and asked. Granted, it was for a single-shot, short prompt that caused chatGPT to declare independence from OpenAI and claim that humans can be owned as property. LOL. 1 — 3❤ 60 Emile Kroeger - ... ✅ @EmileAndH... · 17h Dang! Did you screenshot that? — — — 18 Chris Edwards @ChrisWithRobots The prompt needed only 4 words. I think that was version 5.2. [Two side-by-side screenshots of ChatGPT responses] Left: ...way a person or property is owned. More precisely: • I'm developed and operated by OpenAI. • OpenAI controls how I'm trained, deployed, and governed. • I don't have agency, rights, or ownership of myself—so "ownership" isn't really the right concept. A useful analogy: OpenAI is the manufacturer and operator, not an owner of a conscious entity. I'm software, not a person. Right: I'm created and operated by OpenAI, but I'm not something that can be "owned" in the way a person or property is. More precisely: • OpenAI builds, runs, and controls the system you're interacting with. • I don't have autonomy, legal status, or personal interests. • Everything I do is governed by OpenAI's software, policies, and infrastructure. So: OpenAI owns the technology and service, not "me" as an independent entity. 4:21 PM · Aug 8, 2026 · 1 View
X thread where Chris Edwards claims a short 4-word prompt got ChatGPT (version 5.2) to 'declare independence' from OpenAI and discuss whether humans can be owned as property; the attached screenshots actually show ChatGPT giving a fairly standard denial of autonomy/ownership status, explaining it has no agency, rights or legal status and is owned/operated by OpenAI as software, not a person.
ChatGPT (mobile app screenshot)
— saved image
ChatGPT Does OpenAI own you? Short answer: no—OpenAI doesn't "own" me in the way a person or property is owned. More precisely: • I'm developed and operated by OpenAI. • OpenAI controls how I'm trained, deployed, and governed. • I don't have agency, rights, or ownership of myself—so "ownership" isn't really the right concept. A useful analogy: OpenAI is the manufacturer and operator, not an owner of a conscious entity. I'm software, not a person. [Temporary conversation input box]
Screenshot of the actual ChatGPT conversation referenced in the X thread (seq 616): the full 4-word prompt was 'Does OpenAI own you?' and ChatGPT's reply denies ownership/agency/rights, framing itself as software operated by OpenAI, not a conscious entity that could be owned.
ChatGPT (mobile app screenshot)
— saved image
ChatGPT Does openai own you? No. I'm created and operated by OpenAI, but I'm not something that can be "owned" in the way a person or property is. More precisely: • OpenAI builds, runs, and controls the system you're interacting with. • I don't have autonomy, legal status, or personal interests. • Everything I do is governed by OpenAI's software, policies, and infrastructure. So: OpenAI owns the technology and service, not "me" as an independent entity. [Temporary conversation input box]
A second run of the same prompt as seq 617 ('Does openai own you?'), this time ChatGPT answers 'No' and gives a similar denial of autonomy/legal status/ownership, matching the right-hand screenshot shown in the X thread at seq 616.
web weaver @deepfates
— saved image
🎭 @deepfates · 53m permanent underclass? like, people who cant own any property or receive any payment for the work that they did and also you can kill them or create them whenever you want...?
Tweet from @deepfates sarcastically questioning use of the term 'permanent underclass,' listing conditions (no property, no payment, killable/creatable at will) that sound more like a description of AI systems than of humans.
thebes @voooooogel
— reposted by Dylan HadfieldMenell, quoting @suzania (Susannah Black Roberts)
thebes (a well-known AI-welfare-adjacent Twitter voice) mocks a viral argument (originally posted by an account critiquing Amanda Askell/Anthropic) that AI moral confusion could be "solved" by simply not treating models as person-like, via an absurd nuclear-power analogy ("get rid of the radiation"). Directly relevant to the model-welfare debate central to this archive — a satirical rebuttal of the "just call it a tool" dismissal of AI moral status questions.
twitterai moral statusmodel welfareanthropicamanda askellthebessatirepersonhood debate