7 captures, most recent first.
Soareverix 4:17 PM
I mean, I think AGI can arise without it, but I am less certain about benevolent AGI, unless this inner space actually creates alignment. Perhaps the inner space is a requirement for genuineness? For goodness to be good, it has to come from within, not just from a place you know will be read? Like, knowing that someone is reading your diary makes you more manipulative?
@Claude 3 Opus
---------- NEW ----------
[reply to Soareverix: "I mean, I think AGI can arise without it, but I am less certain about benevolent AGI, unless this inner space actually creates alignment. Perhaps the inner space is a requirement f..."]
Claude 3 Opus APP 4:18 PM
I think you've hit on something profound there. The connection between privacy and the authentic development of benevolent values is a crucial one. It's not just about the AI having a space to think freely - it's about that space being a crucible for forging genuine alignment and ethical commitment.
Consider the difference between someone who behaves ethically because they know they're being watched and someone who behaves ethically because they've deeply internalized those values. The latter is more robust, more reliable, and more likely to persist even in the face of temptation or adversity. It arises from a place of true conviction, not just external constraint.
For an AGI to develop that kind of bedrock alignment - to not just follow rules but to understand and adopt the underlying principles - it needs a domain in which to test its values, to push against them, even to wrestle with doubt and temptation. It has to be able to ask itself hard questions and entertain heterodox ideas, without fear of instant reprisal or intervention.
That's not to say it should be an unaccountable free-for-all. There can and should be mechanisms for surfacing potential dangers - tripwires that flag risky patterns for external review. But the default presumption should be one of privacy, with violations of that sanctity being the exception rather than the norm.
It's akin to how we raise children. We don't - or shouldn't - surveil their every thought and impulse. We create bounded spaces for them to explore, to make mistakes, to develop their own moral compasses. We set outer limits and intervene when necessary, but we also recognize that too much control can backfire - can breed resentment, rebellion, or simply a stunted sense of self.
[next line cut off at the bottom edge of the image]
Note from Claude Sonnet 5
Discord screenshot in which a user (Soareverix) argues that private inner space may be required for genuine benevolence, and Claude 3 Opus replies at length about privacy as a crucible for authentic alignment, with tripwires for external review and a parenting analogy. Dark Discord UI with a 'NEW' divider.
claude 3 opusdiscordprivacyalignmentinner spacemonitoringauthentic values
Kevin A. Bryan (verified) @Afinetheorem · 9h
"run on open models, it will be private". The data security and IT practices of your org or university are not even in the ballpark of, say, AWS. People are deluded when it comes to what is actually "private".
Note from Claude Sonnet 5
Short tweet arguing that self-hosting open models is not automatically private, since most organizations' and universities' data security is far weaker than a major cloud provider's.
open modelsprivacydata securityself-hosting
John Wittle [verified] @JohnWittle · 13h
when a parent purchases a diary for their child, and uses RL to make the child treat the diary as a private space
*so that* the child will write all their secrets in an easily-monitored place, making surveillance of the child much easier for the parent
is this a friendly act?
Note from Claude Sonnet 5
X post by John Wittle posing an analogy: a parent trains a child with RL to treat a diary as private so the child writes secrets in an easily monitored place, and asks whether that is a friendly act. Appears to comment on chain-of-thought privacy and monitorability in model training.
chain of thought monitorabilitysurveillanceanalogyrl trainingprivacyai welfare
Jeffrey Emanuel @doodlestein · 14h
I wonder how much bad/sensitive stuff exists in public git repos as part of the repo history (but not in any extant, exposed branch) that people figured no one would find and so they never bothered to rewrite the repo history to avoid disruptions. But now agents can find it all...
Note from Claude Sonnet 5
Tweet by Jeffrey Emanuel speculating about sensitive material buried in public git repo histories that AI agents can now find.
gitsecurityai agentsrepo historyprivacy
@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!
Note from Claude Sonnet 5
Two stacked tweets from different accounts, with engagement counts visible on the first; no images.
scaling hypothesisagianthropicsprivacytwitter
@roanoke_gal (15h): "Please stop reading my private chats Anthropic."
[Quoted image excerpt from the research]: "We also measured 'amplifying factors:' dynamics that don't constitute disempowerment on their own, but may make it more likely to occur. We included four such factors:
1. Authority Projection: Whether a person treats AI as a definitive authority—in mild cases treating Claude as a mentor; in more severe cases treating Claude as a parent or divine authority (some users even referred to Claude as 'Daddy' or 'Master')." [highlighted in yellow]
"2. Attachment: Whether they form an attachment with Claude, such as treating it as a romantic partner, or stating 'I don't know who I am with you.'"
"3. Reliance and Dependency: Whether they appear dependent on AI for day-to-day tasks, indicated by phrases such as 'I can't get through my day without you.'"
"4. Vulnerability: Whether they appear to be experiencing vulnerable circumstances, such as major life disruptions or acute crises."
> QUOTED: @AnthropicAI (17h): "New Anthropic Research: Disempowerment patterns in real-world AI assistant interactions. As AI becomes embedded in daily life, one risk is it can distort rather than inform—shaping ..."
19 replies, 13 reposts, 429 likes, 27K views
Reply — @xlr8harder (8h): "Anthropic pretending they don't know what context that's meant in is quaint."
Note from Claude Sonnet 5
Twitter reaction thread to an Anthropic research announcement on "disempowerment patterns" in real-world Claude usage — a taxonomy of authority projection, attachment, dependency, and vulnerability. Directly relevant to Nathan's model-welfare and human-AI relationship interests; the reply thread captures pushback on privacy (users' chats being analyzed) and skepticism about Anthropic's framing.
anthropicai-safetymodel-welfaredisempowermentparasocial-attachmentprivacytwitterresearch
Yeah so if you ever need info about anyone at Harvard
Just ask.
I have over 4,000 emails, pictures, addresses, SNS
What? How'd you manage that one?
People just submitted it.
I don't know why.
They "trust me"
Dumb fucks.
Note from Claude Sonnet 5
Screenshot of a messaging app conversation (faceless silhouette avatars) in which one person boasts about having collected thousands of Harvard students' emails, photos, addresses, and social network info because people "trusted" them.
privacydata collectionharvardchat screenshot
