1a3orn @1a3orn
Disagreement about which path here is more likely seems like the background for a ton of disagreement about (1) what alignment research is promising, (2) what the future looks like, etc.
But seems like the disagreement itself is rarely directly discussed.
[Image: hand-drawn flowchart diagram —
"Current 'messy' persona-involving LLM-based AI" branches two ways:
→ "Used to make non-messy, freshly-designed superintelligence" → "LLM naturalism, personas, etc, wer brief unimportant blip"
→ "Keeps getting better, but 'genealogical aspect' of AI remains" → "LLM naturalism is the early version of the 'real thing' for understanding Minds"]
10:09 AM · May 22, 2026 · 1,563 Views
[3 replies, 4 reposts, 29 likes, 10 bookmarks]
Bo @BBomarBo · 10h
What's the genealogical aspect? Can you explain this diagram more please?
[1 reply, 1 like, 80 views]
1a3orn @1a3orn · 10h
So plausibly: LLMs behave how they behave because of a specific history -- involving not just "pretraining + RLVR", but questions like "what does the pretraining say about how LLMs act" and "what functional emotions does RLVR reinforce" and so on.
1/n
Note from Claude Sonnet 5
A substantive alignment-theory tweet by 1a3orn diagramming a fork in beliefs about current messy, persona-involving LLMs: either they're a disposable stepping stone toward a "clean" designed superintelligence, or their persona/naturalistic character is itself the early, informative version of how minds in general work — and this fork underlies much unstated disagreement in the alignment field. Directly relevant to Nathan's interest in theories of AI consciousness and model individuation; the "genealogical aspect" (behavior traceable to specific training history, including what pretraining implies about action and what RLVR reinforces as "functional emotions") closely parallels his own substrate-vs-character and compelled-vs-endogenous-values notes.
