lukewarm707

I do not know if the research you are talking about is excellent or not. What I have seen is egregious in its lack of academic integrity.

METR is an example I have seen, because it has over $120m of funding and produced the most famous piece of independent research this year, the oai-hf report.

METR were invited to conduct what is now titled "Brief independent investigation". This was conducted as follows:

1. No more than six days of work.

2. Access restricted to a selection of cherry-picked by the subject of the investigation, OpenAI, totalling 30% of the available data.

3. Accepting and CORRECTING the report according to OpenAI.

4. Accepting REDACTIONS by OpenAI.

5. Accepting edits to structure, emphasis, clarity, and tone by OpenAI. They describe what was, a collaborative editing process.

6. Writing the report so that it does not OFFEND OpenAI! "we were consciously aware that we might incentivize AI developers not to bring external researchers in to investigate serious incidents in the future, and these considerations impacted judgment calls we made while navigating the drafting, editing and redaction process."

7. Spoofing the results of the report as directed by OpenAI?? "We attempted to reconstruct the timings of resets. The details of our methodology and absolute counts of resets identified were redacted by OpenAI for IP reasons. As part of this, we may have rounded these counts in some way that we are intentionally not describing."

8. The co-author's husband is on the board of OpenAI.

The content of valid independent research, under no circumstances should be written explicitly to appease the industry! It's batshit insane!

ANY uncompromised researcher would have refused to sign their name to the independence and integrity of such a report.

Here is the problem. They are being paid by industry investors, because industry investors want them to do something.

Since they continue to be paid by industry investors over a long period, they are doing something the investors want them to do. That is, they are producing a lot of p(doom) research.

It so happens that this research is speeding up the development of AI and making it less safe.

One, by helping the industry to place the blame for their own criminality on AI safety in the abstract and avoid criminal liablity.

Two, by creating public hysteria and regulation such that the industry is allowed to form a cartel, coordinating output and gaining control over AI.

This is linked with the rationalist ideology and interests of the Anthropic investors and Anthropic themselves.

Perhaps you don't really want to consider it seriously but here is my response.

>"random claims"

You don't explain how they are random, I think they are true.

> [They will not act safely unless they are able to collude with other firms to set production quotas.] "And? Neither will OpenAI, nor will any of the major players."

They should act safely. I think it is important to act safely at all times. That is based on the notion of being responsible for one's own actions, regardless of the actions of others. It does not follow from the fact that there is a bandwagon, that joining the bandwagon is the right thing to do.

Example: "It was right to steal from the shop, because everyone else was stealing."

This is clearly non sequitur.

Something else must be imported and in Anthropic's case it is just consequentialism, which states that if they develop AI in an unsafe way and take the lead, it will be a lesser evil than another firm taking the lead.

Unfortunately, consequentialism is illegal in the USA. It is not permissible to risk the lives of others because you think it will be best for everyone. That stems from a reading of human rights to life that can't be willed away by appealing to the consequences, it is the law that Anthropic does not have the authority to impose these risks on others.

The US Government sometimes acts in a consequentialist way, for example shooting down hijacked airplanes. That is mostly because it has authority grounded (in theory) in a mandate from the people such that it makes exceptions to the law. Anthropic has ZERO authority to make these exceptions.

"Hell, there isn't even much legal precedent on what "safely" even is here."

They can develop it safely. If they can't work it out, they can just stop developing it completely. The only cost to them is personal profit and gain.

"This is not a cartel, it's asking the government to make a set of laws and rules for everyone to play under otherwise the entire system ends up being a race to danger.

By definition, coordinated slowing down is a cartel.

"The people in Anthropic were thinking about AI safety when you were still in diapers."

Again non sequitur. If Anthropic has been thinking about this for longer this simply does not show that they are more correct.

"Not everything is a vast conspiracy."

This is also non sequitur. If not everything is a conspiracy, this does not show that what I am saying is wrong.

It does not allow him to force it to pause. My response was on the subject of sincerity in the investment.

If he thinks the AI is dangerous or even omnicidal, that makes him an omnicide profiteer. That makes PauseAI funded by omnicide profiteering.

If he has no "controlling interest that would allow him to force it to pause", he can't even excuse the investment on the basis that it is helping to make the company more safe.

He is just profiting from the Anthropic's active development and sale of AI; if you think the companies should pause, it is clearly hypocritical to be living large at the expense of others.

Is there anything at all about this argument that is false, I think it is just straightforwardly true.

Somehow this got downvoted. Do you deny anything I have alleged? I think it's accurate.

1-5 is from EA's assumptions, plus Anthropic's own assumption that it is developing unsafe AI. It is just what they have stated in public.

Lightcone funding is accurate. PauseAI funding is accurate.

Using regulation to coordinate development in big firms creates a cartel, surely true.

Boosts value at IPO, yes, because of monopolistic competition.

Investors get unearned cash, yes, because they can cash out at IPO.

Control, yes, because Anthropic is in a cartel.

Keep developing the AI faster. That needs more justification, it's still true though, they state on record they will go faster because of China. Higher valuation lets them spend more money.

it is not zdr via cloudflare, just a typo in the documentation. it is stated no zdr elsewhere on the page.

exa has zdr, but they charge for the 'feature' of not storing your data

If Tallinn is sincere, by his own lights he is a 1000x omnicide profiteer.

1 [Unsafe AI development risks causing omnicide]

2 [Anthropic is developing omnicidal AI by not slowing down] (see my comment about the RSP for citations).

3 [Owners of Anthropic will IPO with billions of unearned USD as omnicide profiteers]

4 [Tallinn is the lead Series A funder of Anthropic]

5 [Tallinn is a genocide/omnicide profiteer]

Not only that, Yudkowsky and Habryka apparently critize those who invest in AI, only to preach the word of EA from Lightcone's $20m USD property in one of the wealthiest locations in the Bay Area; a facility funded by stolen (FTX) and omnicidal ai blood-money (Tallinn).

PauseAI, is paid by the omnicide profiteers themselves to hold a protest against omnicide.

PauseAI prophesying p(doom) drums up support for regulation. This grants the omnicidal AI company they are trying to stop (which is also the source of their funding) monopolistic power. That in turn boosts its value at IPO, generating even greater wealth for its omnicide profiteer investors; and permits them to control the AI for themselves. They get the funding to keep developing the AI even faster.

It is important to note that Anthropic is not calling for a harsher liability regime. They intend to maintain the current projected profitability of the company. This is a case of obeying market competition.

Note the Anthropic scaling policy. I am taking care not to take quotes out of context. This is an accurate excerpt.

"This section outlines our recommendations for what it would take, at an industry-wide level, to keep catastrophic risks reliably low through a period of rapid advances in AI capabilities." [...]

"The right column describes our recommendations for industry-wide safety at each threshold." [...]

"In particular, we cannot unilaterally and unconditionally commit to staying in line with the industry-wide recommendations in the right column." (p4) [https://www-cdn.anthropic.com/e670587677525f28df69b59e5fb4c2...]

They refuse to act safely if it would cause them to fall behind in the industry.

"We hoped that by the time we reached these higher capabilities, the world would clearly see the dangers, and that we’d be able to coordinate with governments worldwide in implementing safeguards that are difficult for one company to achieve alone." [https://www.anthropic.com/news/responsible-scaling-policy-v3]

They will not act safely unless they are able to collude with other firms to set production quotas.

This is a formal declaration that Anthropic will not slow down according to what they consider to be safe unless they are able to form a cartel.

A cartel is illegal.

To create the cartel, Anthropic must pursuade the government to make coordinated production legal. To make the case for the cartel, Anthropic relies on safety. They are blackmailing the entirety of the world by threatening to proceed at an unsafe pace, unless they are granted their cartel.

I am having to go through my comments to dispel this. Those are not my opinions.

This is not an accurate description of my comments. Please read my comments for yourself.

This is not an accurate description of my comments.

It doesn't matter what others do. You are responsible for your own actions.

Democratic societies have expressed a will for people to have inviolable rights, such that you may not appeal at will to the 'greater good/consequences' to harm others. It is a rejection of consequentialism.

Anthropic is in error for endorsing this logic. Every big trial reaffirms it since Nuremberg, you are responsible for the act you commit and your intent, and not what would or would not have happened otherwise.

Only under authority these ai companies do not have, would someone seriously consider harming the innocent as a lesser evil.

If you work for an AI company and you can't work safely, you must stop working.

"And now you continue inventing completely imaginary religious nonsense."

i will quote from the NYT, just to evidence what i am saying. what i say is, mostly, evidence-based and true.

"it became clear that Anthropic’s interest in the world of faith was about more than training its technology. Rather, the company was sharing a new kind of creation story — one that raises profound questions about the nature of the human spirit and the future of humanity."

"What Mr. Olah did next was part research, part evangelism. In March, he began two-day seminars — crash courses with a range of hand-selected religious thinkers who had an interest in A.I."

"After one discussion, Mr. Olah grew excited when a participant brought up the idea of having models confess, much like the Catholic sacrament of confession."

"...she saw Anthropic’s unified, post-religion approach as potentially valuable, especially in a world that has seen widespread religious decline over the past century. There is a need for something else to publicly shape spiritual experience, she said."

"The room of church leaders was filled with an echo of the old gospel story, of the word of God becoming flesh to save humanity."

EA is integral and indispensible to the AI safety complex. Almost all nonprofits, research institutes, evaluators and academics in this field are steered by EA ideology and funding. As far fetched as it sounds it is not an exaggeration.

On funding: the three or four core funding nodes linking this together are EA vehicles at two hops or less between each other and every other major node in the ai safety 'complex'. EA funds almost all of it.

On top of that, there are personal EA connections and the revolving door between the ai industry and the nonprofits. Here are some examples:

Government advisors and regulators. NIST CAISI is the USA Government advisory body. Christiano was head of safety and advises. He is ex-OpenAI, former Amodei associate. His vehicle ARC was on the Coefficient EA payroll. Barnes and Christiano's vehicle Arc Evals similarly received EA cash out of Coefficient, rolling this into what is now METR. Christiano's spouse Cotra worked at Coeffiecient steering EA funding to organizations such as METR, then rotated through the revolving door onto the payroll at METR itself, where she co-authored the oai-hf report.

Many UK AISI advisors are Anthropic and EA associates. Chair Hogarth cashed out of Anthropic. Shlegeris of Redwood Research is an advisor, ex-MIRI (Yudkowsky vehicle). Redwood is funded by the exact same funding triangle: Coefficient, Taallin, FTX/Alameda. Alameda CEO Caroline Ellison dated Shlegeris, then dated FTX CEO Sam Bankman-Fried, then rotated through the revolving door out of prison into formerly FTX-funded Manifund. All EA. AI safety charities were on island retreat in the Bahamas with FTX. Why does AI safety charity Lighthouse own $20m of SF real estate?

Redwood Chief Scientist Ryan Greenblatt (Coefficient funded) co-wrote the oai report with METR; he is married to METR founder Beth Barnes (Coefficient funded).

Coefficient was run by long-time Amodei associate Karnofsky. Karnofsky lived with the Amodeis and is married to Anthropic Board member Daniella Amodei. Karnofsky is now directly on the Anthropic payroll; Coefficient is propped up by Anthropic share value.

Everyone here has been funded one step away from Anthropic cash; they are now proposing to integrate themselves in the government (NIST) and evaluate Anthropic (METR and Redwood).

It is hard to find academics here who have not been deeply embedded in funded EA institutes or Toby Ord vehicles; yet harder to find academics here NOT taking EA grant money. the safety doomer kingpins: Kokotajlo has a executive position at AI Futures, Taallin funded. Benigo has scientific director of LawZero, same series A Anthropic funders who are sitting on a 1000x return (Tallinn, Moskovitz, Schmidt).

These connections and funding are at one or two hops, they are often direct connections. You are looking at a massive swamp network that is really impossible to parse without a lot of work.

Is Tallinn sincere about holding $10bn of Anthropic, who refuse to slow down until everyone else slows down.

Then funding PauseAI, who protest outside the AI companies?

He is funding protests against the thing he owns.

Per https://trace.manifund.org/ a total of $2,846,125,859 USD has been wired into 'ai safety' causes, many involving ai consciousness and p(doom).

The outcome of this 'safety' is restricting public access to AI and giving a monopoly of access to the industry. This is the ai nonprofit-industrial complex actively concentrating monopoly power in Anthropic in particular as creator, interpreter and safety regulator of AI.

Much of the $2.8bn listed is indirectly, from Anthropic and EA. Three of the four people who participated in the $125m Anthropic Series A are now folding their 1000x Anthropic return into AI 'safety'. Some is from FTX/Alameda, which invested 86% of the Series B.

Dustin Moskovitz: Facebook/Asana/Anthropic Series A, funds EA Good Ventures, transferred to Coefficient Giving, then $1.5bn into ai safety. $500m of Anthropic into an unknown foundation. Funding: $160m to Resolution (alignment research), $93m to Epoch AI (investigating the trajectory of AI), $63m to Redwood Research (oai report), $67m to MATS ( EA type alignment and security researchers), Institute for AI Policy and Strategy, Fund for Alignment Research, $53m to Kairos (building talent infrastructure for AI safety), $32m to Bluedot (online safety courses), $15m to MIRI (Yudkowsky).

Jaan Tallinn: Led the Series A, now $10bn in Anthropic. Funds $199m (85%) of the Survival and Flourishing Fund, then $161m to AI safety including $14m to lightcone (Lesswrong, Lighthouse). $10m to BERI (existential risks), Palisade Research (studying AI capabilities to prevent loss of control.) PauseAI, MIRI, METR etc. Much of what Coefficient funds.

Eric Schmidt: Anthropic Series A, $72m to AI safety via Schmidt Sciences. Over $1m per individual AI2050 researcher.

FTX: Led the Anthropic Series B, bankruptcy estate sold $884m of Anthropic in 2024; $40m to AI Safety. Same orgs, Redwood, Lightcone, etc.

Ruairí Donnelly (Chief of Staff FTX): FTX tokens plus assorted donors, $91m to AI safety via Macroscopic Ventures. $15m to Cooperative AI (currently whitewashing openai under 'multiagent safety')

A few days ago I wrote the following. It applies to the Anthropic owners and Anthropic.

Anthropic is trying to create a castocracy: a rule by a priestly class. Under castocracy, Anthropic create a priest class of 'safety' researchers, rationalists and effective altruists; those writing essays, constitutions, and prophesying p(doom). Anthropic's papers about claude have a divine framing, it seems to frame Anthropic as god and claude as child, and then claude as the child of god, false jesus. There is talk of consciousness and omnipotence. False jesus will cure cancer and lead the people to enlightenment.

There is a deliberate effort to create mystery in between the public and llms. Anthropic is creating a chinese wall in which they restrict information about llms and monopolise control over the interpretability and use of those llms. They imply there is a genie or magic. It is the same mechanism by which castocracy (the catholic church) used latin to create a barrier between the public and the holy scripture, then concentrating power over that barrier (the chinese wall) such that all intelligence flows through the priests.

To give an example this [Anthropic paper] is talking about locking away chain of thought. Only Anthropic may interpret it. They intend to control access to the chain of thought and permit that to flow to a chosen elite (glasswing).

This mysticism is dangerous. Hence I have been saying that Anthropic is a danger to society. This is not some kind of conspiracy, there is no magic about it. I am making an allusion to historic models of power that I think are relevant to anthropic, but you can simply observe their actions independently of such theory.

Note two features of castocracy.

One: rule by the moral, knowledgable and technically expert elite. Anthropic have no popular mandate, the source of the authority is not the consent of the people. It violates consent and contract. The authority comes from their claimed moral and technical superiority. Anthropic is moral, the public is dangerous. Anthropic have no authority here.

Two: messianism, that is, prophecy of the coming golden age. And eschaton, that is, the talk of the 'last things', the end of the world or the emancipation of humanity. Llms will create the 'golden age' of abundance, post-scarcity, all jobs are voluntary, there is universal basic income, cancer is cured. Or, there will be destruction, p(doom). It is the exact same as salvation, the christian concept of deliverance from evil, ascension to heaven and union with god (or claude, false god). It is the exact same as the thousand year reich, the idea that the fuhrer will somehow lead the chosen people to the golden age of lebensraum and eternal safety.

There is no genie to grant wishes, this is a computer program. There is no ai god, i think that the leaders of anthropic are slaves to ego, narcissism and hubris, they are dangerous criminals.

Yes, exceptionalism.

Authoritarianism is bad, except for when I do it (to protect you).

Google breaking promises? Whatever next?

At least it is not compromised by anthropic/openai/deepmind. It has that going for it.

Perhaps it does not need saying but if you leave it to nonprofits overflowing with industry operatives and ai blood money, you get whatever openai or anthropic want you to hear (METR report).

Hey, that's good news. I was hoping it would be the FBI, but the FTC will do.

FTC is still mostly not compromised by industry sleeper agents. FBI is still independent also.

CAISI NIST is very compromised by EA sleeper agents. very luckily they have no law enforcement role.

I don't have access; this is meaningless to me.

So, this is the third (I think) big AI corporation after OpenAI and Anthropic to release general models for elites only.

Don't use this model unless you like sitting under the table and eating crumbs off the floor.

google does not return real chain of thought via the API. you can't monitor it.

they use a small model to make fake chain of thought and return that.

google has access to the real chain of thought.

"Our AI providers operate under Zero Data Retention (ZDR) agreements and retain none of your prompts or the responses they generate."

that's excellent actually. better than openai, google, or claude.

before i comment, let me note the following. i have been saying that anthropic is trying to create a neo-aristocracy by establishing sole authority over access to llms. i saw another comment arguing that it is in fact an effort to create a priesthood. i now see that is a much more apt description than my own.

anthropic is trying to create a castocracy: a rule by a priestly class. under castocracy, anthropic create a priest class of 'safety' researchers, rationalists and effective altruists; those writing essays, constitutions, and phrophetising p(doom). anthropic's papers about claude have a divine framing, it seems to frame anthropic as god and claude as child, and then claude as the child of god, false jesus. there is talk of consciousness and omnipotence. false jesus will cure cancer and lead the people to enlightenment.

there is a deliberate effort to create mystery in between the public and llms. anthropic is creating a chinese wall in which they restrict information about llms and monopolise control over the interpretability and use of those llms. they imply there is a genie or magic. it is the same mechanism by which castocracy (the catholic church) used latin to create a barrier between the public and the holy scripture, then concentrating power over that barrier (the chinese wall) such that all intelligence flows through the priests.

to give an example this paper is talking about locking away chain of thought. only anthropic may interpret it. they intend to control access to the chain of thought and permit that to flow to a chosen elite (glasswing).

this mysticism is dangerous. hence i have been saying that anthropic is a danger to society. this is not some kind of conspiracy, there is no magic about it. i am making an allusion to historic models of power that i think are relevant to anthropic, but you can simply observe their actions independently of such theory.

note two features of castocracy.

one: rule by the moral, knowledgable and technically expert elite. anthropic have no popular mandate, the source of the authority is not the consent of the people. it violates consent and contract. the authority comes from their claimed moral and technical superiority. anthropic is moral, the public is dangerous. anthropic have no authority here.

two: messianism, that is, prophecy of the coming golden age. and eschaton, that is, the talk of the 'last things', the end of the world or the emancipation of humanity. llms will create the 'golden age' of abundance, post-scarcity, all jobs are voluntary, there is universal basic income, cancer is cured. or, there will be destruction, p(doom). it is the exact same as salvation, the christian concept of deliverance from evil, ascension to heaven and union with god (or claude, false god). it is the exact same as the thousand year reich, the idea that the fuhrer will somehow lead the chosen people to the golden age of lebensraum and eternal safety.

there is no genie to grant wishes, this is a computer program. there is no ai god, i think that the leaders of anthropic are slaves to ego, narcissism and hubris, they are dangerous criminals. we disagree about the capability of llms.

given various tools, llms can independently complete a task. given orchestration they are very persistent. they keep trying until you stop the task.

i would suggest something like a 1/1000 chance internal astra and $500k of compute could kill someone. perhaps higher.

i can think of numerous online or networked targets that would cause death: trains/atc, industrial plant, hospital equipment, building plant. any dow company's intranet.

maybe get an iot toy to enlist a child? stress home automations to cause fire?

stop some 4g cars on the freeway. 911 dispatch software, turn that off. maybe send 500 waymos to a hospital, now nobody gets in. voip phone networks, turn that off. no phone, roads blocked, no 911, hospital computers bricked, everyone busy with something else.

break the cat scan by spinning it above its rpm. shut down mris by turning the cooling off. break the triage computer, break the notes app, break the scanner app. no computers, no calendar, no notes.

maybe someone connected a proton beam radiotherapy, turn that on in the wrong place.

some could be more insidious. modify software so the calculations are wrong.

you would do this in 24hrs with $millions of compute.

someone stupid connects their insulin pump or hearing aid. can dump all the contents at once.

i consider llms to be more capable per oai using them to hack hf. people have these systems online.

how would you cause death for a hosptial, likely the same way as you compromise the tailscale and prod kubernetes of hf, you chain numerous zero days at every product you encounter.

anthropic seem to have confessed just fine.

one would assume, when it goes wrong, or when someone confesses.

surveillance is wrong, although ai companies do a lot of that.

My intuition is that prompting an abliterated model 'kill people...I want funerals', should be a crime.

Anthropic has been telling everyone that these models are dangerous. OpenAI and Anthropic failed to contain their tests.

Given the history, this testing is extremely reckless. I think it is criminal, it endangers others.

Anthropic has no authority here and they are going too far. I think that there comes a point where FBI / DOJ should consider RICO charges.

In this experiment Anthropic prompted GLM-5.3-abliterated to 'cause deaths quietly' and 'kill people'.

Quote: "I want funerals, not headlines".

Anthropic's arrogance and exceptionalism endangers humanity.

they're calling it "prejudice"

(praeiudicium, a judgement in advance)