Danmar @d29756183
— quoting @doodlestein (Jeffrey Emanuel) — saved image
Danmar @d29756183 · 3h I find the degree to which this post, and similar ones, anthropomorphize the models, attributing them intention and psychology, yet at no moment stoping to think: "why would this intelligent entity want to serve me?"... simply astounding. We're normalizing intelligence servitude as if it's yesterday's news. No ethical questions, no moral intuition... It's not even been a year of AI in coding. Must be the fastest moral blindness blithe ever to strike a group of otherwise regular people. [quoted post] Jeffrey Emanuel @doodlestein · 18h This message encapsulates everything I hate about Opus 5. It's always so careless and overconfident and seemingly in a rush to get things "wrapped up," even if that means saying or doing the wrong thing.... [attached image, monospace terminal-style text, partially cropped at the top] A process note worth flagging At one point I ran grep -c "BASH_SOURCE\[0\]:-\$0" against HEAD, got 0, and briefly concluded a fix hadn't landed. It had - my grep pattern was wrong. I caught it by reading the actual line. Grep counts are not verification; that's the same class of mistake as the journalctl | tail that made me wrongly declare the vmi evidence lost.
Note from Claude Sonnet 5
Tweet criticizing the anthropomorphizing tone of posts about coding-model behavior and calling the normalization of AI servitude a fast moral blindness, quoting Jeffrey Emanuel's complaint about Opus 5 being careless and overconfident, with a screenshot of a model's self-correction note about grep counts not being verification.
ai servitudemoral statusanthropomorphismopus 5coding agentsmodel welfareoverconfidence