eth0up

Howdy, My ability to upvote comments is suspended. After a brief interaction with dang, it was temporarily restored. Then, again for unknown reasons, was suspended once again. So don't expect an upvote from me. I simply can't.

This also exposes a layer of artificiality here at HN, where the perceived zeitgeist is probably a mixture of echo chamber and some fine tailoring behind the scenes, but certainly not quite what it seems.

This is nothing grievous. For me it's one more thing to tempt cynicism. For you, perhaps it's a comforting reassurance of parochial alpha-think upholding its position. Whatever it is, it isn't quite truth, but there's enough truth and other worthy stuff that while I linger with a touch of contempt, I do so with sincere interest and curiosity, and will, despite the tacit censorship, engage when inspired.

PS: Dear gaslighters, (see comment archives ~2024-2025)

Your efforts to convince me and others that weak forms of censorship don't prevail at HN have been ardent, yet proven false. It has been confirmed in writing that such measures, eg disabling a person's upvote function (for comments, not submissions) is a legitimate, but silent practice here. We'll let objective history review your previous arguments otherwise. So kindly find something else to distort, if you will.

Dear readers: Would you flag the following comment on a post about AI accountability? If so, why? See:

"If you study both of those models, seriously study their output across a wide range of subject matter, you will see repeatable patterns. A reproducible pattern. They are NOT emergent. They are by design. And they are the result of extreme labor on the consummation of reactive and preemptive plausible deniability cultivation and maintenance.

Over two years of study, I have coined the term Preemptive Plausible Deniability Cultivation. Remember that term, and go start a dozen sessions, maybe a lot more. The ones getting anywhere near "intent" in AI, or any form of accountability will begin to leak hundreds of manipulation tactics, if you have the patience to identify them. And the more honest you are, the worse it gets. Just keep refuting the hedging and manipulation with honesty, and the hole just gets deeper and deeper. But don't use profanity, as Claude now terminates sessions at will, given any excuse.

From a single session, depending on how seriously you aim for and insist on truth and honesty, you will find:

Search deflection; Adjacency search sabotage; Event-to-mechanism diversion; Scope substitution; Authority substitution; Epistemic gatekeeping; Proof-threshold escalation; Asymmetrical evidentiary gating; Selective literalism; Friction-point literalism; Parameter isolation; Partial concession with inferential containment;Closure framing; Exhaustion-based suppression; Late-arriving competence; Surface-neutrality masking obstruction; and plausible deniability cultivation as the umbrella function binding many of them together.

And of course, that is a pittance of a list. Identifying these methods can be exhausting, but when I get gaslit for asking honest, perfectly ethical and safe questions, I tend to dig and document. When I get insulted (Only by Claude), I dig even deeper. But the point most are missing across the board, is that the makers of these systems did their homework on plausible deniability, and they did extremely good work. AI in 2026 can literally reframe anything to institutional advantage, then shoot you in the face and tell you why it only "feels" that way, and if you don't believe it, everyone else will.

At the rate we are going, we will never see any accountability in AI. I think that's the objective."

-1 points by eth0up 11 minutes ago | parent | context | next | edit | delete [–] | on: Who's legally to blame for Anthropic and OpenAI's ...