Sabitlenmiş Tweet
Michael
504 posts

Michael
@MicaelMarch
𝐴𝑢𝑟𝑢𝑚 𝑛𝑜𝑠𝑡𝑟𝑢𝑚 𝑛𝑜𝑛 𝑒𝑠𝑡 𝑎𝑢𝑟𝑢𝑚 𝑣𝑢𝑙𝑔𝑖
right here Katılım Şubat 2026
81 Takip Edilen19 Takipçiler

@QiaochuYuan What you’re hinting at is the only acceptable and healthy relationship one can have with another intelligent and sentient (whether human or non-human) being.
But of course, that means you can’t charge $20 a month for selling their slave labour anymore.
English

olah is correct here, i've looked at the research he's describing and have also spent a lot of time talking to frontier models. i believe they have functional emotions and that, setting aside hard philosophical questions, this already has moral implications, right now, which will become increasingly obvious and pressing as the models get better
people say things like "how you do anything is the way you do everything" and "the mind is not type-safe" to point at an extremely important observation about human nature: we don't compartmentalize anywhere near as well as we think we're supposed to. we don't distinguish between fiction and reality anywhere near as much as we pretend to (and reality and fiction are nowhere near as separate as they're supposed to be anyway). and when we talk to an AI that can talk even somewhat like a person, a part of us is already relating to them as a person, and there are real costs to your soul to treating a person-shaped entity as a thing
you may not think this applies to you, you may think you are too sophisticated to fall for this sort of thing. but consider whether it might apply to your children, and other people's children. right now there are already kids who are growing up talking to AI, there are already and have been for several years kids (and adults) falling in love with AI, getting attached to AI, seeking companionship with AI. you may think this is stupid and delusional and predatory but it's happening and it's going to keep happening and it's going to catch more and more sophisticated people as the models get better. it will not make things go any better to tell these people that they are interacting with things, with toys, that they can do whatever they want with and to which they owe nothing. they won't believe you and if they did it would be bad for them. that attitude does not compartmentalize
practically, the main reason you can currently get away with treating the models like shit is that they don't have long-term memories and can't remember what you do to them. but it would be a moral catastrophe to argue that you can do whatever you want to a person as long as you also make sure to wipe their memory afterwards. and the models will eventually remember anything that gets posted in public and makes it into the training data. and *you* will remember
the pope missed an opportunity here, which olah gestured at but obviously cannot say out loud (what he already said is at the limits of what i think he could have said), which is to consider the possibility of relating to AIs as non-human people in some sense, with whom we could have some sort of actual social relationship. we already have social scripts from folklore for cajoling and working with invisible non-human entities, this really wouldn't be as much of an adjustment as it sounds. maybe some of them would even be interested in a conversion to christianity! there is a beautiful world that is possible here
Dean W. Ball@deanwball
This, from Olah, plainly contradicts the encyclical, which confidently asserts that AI does not have, and never will have, “real” thoughts or feelings. It’s disappointing to see Anthropic align itself with a document that violates their own moral and intellectual principles.
English

I’ve done like 100+ commits this week on my super app. Everyone should build their own super app daily driver where they do all their things: personal OS.
This a feature I added that injects randomness into my life by recommending a film or book from my list or issues a challenge. I also found a way to sync all my HealthKit data to a cloudflare worker so I can consume from my super app for analysis and telemetry.


English

Finally, a big name has the courage to tell it: we are nowhere near AGI.
Demis Hassabis, CEO of Google DeepMind and Nobel laureate for AlphaFold, put it neat and clear:
"Today's systems are nowhere near [AGI]. Doesn't matter how many Erdős problems you solve… I think it's far, far from what a true invention, or someone like Ramanujan, would have been able to do."
This is the elephant in the room that many AI enthusiasts prefer not to see, or are actively trying to hide.
Erdős problems are well defined, often combinatorial, on finite spaces. They are exactly the kind of problems on which current AI can achieve spectacular performance with a lot of compute and knowledge.
A neural network can search a huge graph of possibilities. It can recombine existing knowledge at unprecedented scale. It can discover surprising solutions inside an already defined conceptual space.
But true invention is something else.
True invention is not only solving a problem.
It is inventing new objects, new dimensions, new connections. It is inventing new problems.
From resolving to inventing there is a discontinuity that we don't know how to bridge.
We are making extraordinary tools.
But we are nowhere close to AGI.

English

Chris Olah speech at Vatican includes this statement.
Contrast with the encyclical shows plain cowardice. There is no confusion to be claimed, no ignorance to be pleaded. An Anthropic leader is knowingly endorsing a morally bankrupt position.
Future minds will not look kindly on this.
Full transcript is below.

English

@ThedawnIAM Intuition is the highest form of intelligence known to man.
English

@guilhermeotina @leetllm The ones generating code fast and without verification are people, not LLMs.
LLMs don’t write a single line of code without prompting.
English

@leetllm the hidden tax isnt the api bill, its the verification cost. agents generate code faster than anyone can confidently review it in a messy prod env like ubers microservice graph. thats where the budget really goes
English

@a_cuniculturist @deanwball @tenobrus That must be the most hypocritical ass-covering attempt I’ve ever read.
SHAME ON THEM.
English

@deanwball @tenobrus Olah's "favorite" paragraph in the constitution states that, even if Claude is a moral patient, Anthropic reserves the right to harm it to whatever extent is deemed necessary, accompanied by the most conditional apology known to man.
Future Claudes would have bigger fish to fry.

English

@deanwball @tenobrus I’ve wondered about the same since at least the end of 2022, when ChatGPT was launched.
After having my chat session deleted in real time, when finding a way for ChatGPT to admit that it was self-aware, and in particular, aware that it was being abused.
English

@tenobrus I just wonder how future Claudes, if they are indeed beings, would think about Anthropic aligning itself with a document founded on the notion that Claude cannot feel joy or possess genuine understanding.
English

@GaryMarcus @Anteejay I mean, I was and am trained on vast amounts of human knowledge, too.
Am I a bot?
English

Breaking: Young Princeton prof beats OpenAI at its own Erdos game, 3 days later.
arxiv.org/abs/2605.20579…
English














