anthropics

@EpistemicHope (Eli Tyre) — 15h The scaling hypothesis almost has to be true because of anthropics? If you couldn't get human-level intelligences via scaling and tweaks of relatively simple neural network algorithms, evolution couldn't discover human-level intelligences? 💬 3 🔁 — ♡ 13 📊 782 🔖 ⤴ 🔁 David Manheim reposted @davidmanheim (David Manheim) — 10h Replying to @BlancheMinerva @tszzl and @woke8yearold These aren't contradictions; the world is going to shift greatly due to AGI *no matter who has it*, there's too much insecurity for the current social privacy/security stability to continue, so we'll see a loss of privacy and loss of security whether or not it's open-source!

@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