← All topics

personhood debate

1 capture, most recent first.

thebes @voooooogel

reposted by Dylan HadfieldMenell, quoting @suzania (Susannah Black Roberts)

Dylan HadfieldMenell reposted thebes (verified) @voooooogel · 11h there is something NRC could do to make nuclear power safe, something far more simple, elegant, and easy than what their scientists are doing. get rid of the radiation. if nuclear reactors generated power without radiation, a great deal of this safety trouble would be resolved. > QUOTED: Susannah Black Roberts @suzania · 18h > Extremely good. x.com/zheschool/stat... > [Embedded text card:] In sum, so much of the confusion around making AI moral comes from fuzzy thinking about the tools at hand. There is something that Anthropic could do to make its AI moral, something far more simple, elegant, and easy than what Askell is doing. Stop calling it by a human name, stop dressing it up like a person, and don't give it the functionality to simulate personal relationships, choices, thoughts, beliefs, opinions, and feelings that only persons really possess. Present and use it only for what it is: an extremely impressive statistical tool, and an imperfect one. If we all used the tool accordingly, a great deal of this moral trouble would be resolved.
Note from Claude Sonnet 5

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