CIRCLE WITH A DOT

@Robo105 @Natasha_Jay Correction, “what people that trained AI models think others should believe”.

@Natasha_Jay Are we automating Goodheart’s law now?

@davidgerard

> It was the Queen's English, the language of the colonial administrator, the missionary, the headmaster. It was the language of the Bible, of Shakespeare, of the law. It was a tool of power, and we were taught to wield it with precision.

@skjeggtroll @tante Technopriests.

@mwl I suspect you might be the first person to progress that thought to “for their IP” part.

@mwl I see what problems AI solves here. Genius move, Anthropic.

@thomasfuchs It’s has been a useful way to describe things. We use those same verbs to describe behavior of malware without any issues.

The problem arises not from the verbs themselves, but from the targeted campaign to establish a false premise that AI has agency [and will doom us all].

It’s not that these verbs imply agency, but that the pool is so poisoned that the usual verbs fail due to implied agency.

Which is a long way to say „I concede your point”.

@thomasfuchs That’s a general natural language problem.

For example, „you’re avoiding responsibility” and „he avoided responsibility” use the same verb with very different connotations when it comes to intent attribution.

Our verbs aren’t that clear cut on their own. We also tend to merge or specialize closely related ones.

That is a reason why `AGENTS.md` is a braindead idea, for example. But that’s a separate rant entirely.

@thomasfuchs You don’t need agency to evade safeguards, destroy things, or ignore instructions. `rm` can do it.

This is literally the mistake people you criticize are making - imbuing intent where there’s none.

The underlying tech had been apt at finding ways to circumvent feedback loops since before the bubble. This is constrained to the training phase, but with verification of commercial models being mathematically infeasible, these avoidance patterns are shipped directly to users.

@purrperl @cyberwitch @adhdeanasl @tillybridges If a random woman said „I’d do you” to me, I’d be grossed out.

Go extinct, please.

@davidgerard With that salary I could retire early. With that job description I will retire right into the grave.

@simonzerafa @sarahjamielewis I’m really annoyed how this is framed as „law compliance”.

Law doesn’t require an init system to do this shit. Law could be satisfied by a separate service left to rot by everyone else on the planet.

@randahl While I also find it increasingly hard to belong to the same species, he is still at least a Deuterostome.

@Boerdejakobiner @johnzajac @VeeRat

I never saw people lose reasoning ability after working with an intern.

@muod @danirabbit So are whips. I heard baking with them is all the rage nowadays.

@larsmb I didn’t know how much I wanted to scream until I read this…

@tante I can’t get an answer to a simple question for the last few months: „what’s the goal and how will you know we’ve achieved it specifically thanks to AI?”

Because if the work I’ve been doing to remove obstacles to productivity for the last year and a half will get attributed to this bullshit, I’ll start complying maliciously.

@ariadne You need climate destroying approach to get a model that can pattern match sufficiently well for people with no self awareness—a surprisingly huge percentage of population—to mistake it for intelligence.

Models still collapse then, but collapse is esoteric enough to be framed as „bad prompt engineering”.

@solarpapst The funniest—for a very grim definition of fun—part is, all of the things shown in the video don’t even need to have their funding cut. Simply forcing the Pentagon to pass an audit for once would be enough.