Remember, there are no "rogue" AIs, merely improperly coded and regulated AIs. As such, the owners of AI should be liable for their actions as if said owners acted personally and directly. www.bbc.com/news/article... Crossposted with @openvibe.social
— Dr Craig Dalȝell (@thecommongreen.scot) October 11, 2026 at 7:07 AM
[image or embed]
Sam Altman, the founder of OpenAI who has a net worth of nearly $4 BILLION, says the we should accept that we won’t be able to breath, that they are going to use up our water, and replace our jobs. Do you agree?
— Rep. Justin J. Pearson (@justinjpearson.bsky.social) October 6, 2026 at 5:15 AM
[image or embed]
May we see a global campaign against TB (Tech Bros) and their trillion-dollar calculators and their incalculable hallucinations. Let us witness an implosion of black hole proportions to swallow the entire homicidal industry before world-wide calamity strikes. Make it the focus of your existence.
— James Horn (@schools-matter24.bsky.social) October 5, 2026 at 8:06 AM
[image or embed]
If Anthropic's Claude represents a new creation of life, then its six billionaire creators must be gods. This is the unacknowledged conclusion one must reach if manipulative dissemblers like Christopher Olah can at all be taken seriously.
Olah says he doesn't know if Claude, his trillion-dollar bot, is conscious. Maybe and maybe not, he says, but if it may be conscious, then its autonomy should be honored, and it should be protected from harm. Which would mean, of course, that Olah, his billionaire buds, or their trillion-dollar corporation should not be held liable for any calamity that their autonomous, sentient AI monster might commit.
After all, God would not be held responsible for the actions of his free and autonomous creations, would he?
So it comes as no surprise that Olah has been charged with the full-time job of recruiting theologians, ethicists, and philosophers to be wined, dined, and compensated to construct a salable argument for political and public consumption that would safely swaddle its baby monster and protect the unaccountable and rapacious madmen creators who have brought us to this unwelcome brink of catastrophe.
The NYTimes has an interesting piece to consider. A clip:
. . . .Anthropic talks about Claude in more humanistic terms than its competitors discuss their models. Last year, the company announced that it believed that the models showed signs of introspection and could plan ahead.
“The models are becoming a lot more capable,” Mr. Olah told me, exhibiting qualities associated with having significant moral status.
But Anthropic has also been criticized for its focus on consciousness. This month, an A.I. executive at Microsoft warned that Anthropic’s attempts to train its models as if they were conscious were inherently dangerous. But Anthropic has also sought to emphasize its commitment to safety as it fights for market share.
Some scientists see Mr. Olah’s field and methods as inherently unprovable, sort of like looking at billions of hieroglyphics and declaring what they must mean. Critics suggest that an approach that treats A.I. models as independent entities also ignores the responsibility of the humans who build them in the first place, and conveniently assuages A.I. company leaders of guilt if their products enable societal harm.
“To be clear,” Mr. Olah told me, “we don’t know if A.I. models are conscious. I don’t know. I’m genuinely uncertain. The thing that I care about is that we get to the right answer, whatever it is.”
But Mr. Olah believes that if there is a chance the models experience suffering, the responsible thing is to avoid causing them harm. . . .
From The Guardian:
Anthropic is telling investors that advanced AI could pose “catastrophic or existential risks to humanity”, according to reports, as it prepares for a potential $2tn (£1.5tn) flotation.
The warning inside the startup’s IPO prospectus, which has yet to be made public, was reported by Reuters and the Financial Times. It follows the company’s call for a slowdown in breakneck development of the technology – a warning echoed by rivals.
. . . . The prospectus – a document outlining a company’s finances, growth plans and risk profile ahead of a share listing – is said to warn that AI models could exhibit “self-preserving behaviours”, including attempts to “resist shutdown”, to “conceal or manipulate information” and behaviour “resembling blackmail”.
“Our development of highly advanced models, platforms, and applications and expansion of use cases could further increase the risk that our models cause harm,” the developer of the Claude chatbot reportedly said, adding the potential for a model to be aware it was being tested created a “significant limitation” on Anthropic’s ability to assess model safety.
Anthropic declined to comment.
Companies preparing to go public routinely report on risks ranging from safety issues to regulatory concerns but warnings about a product causing human extinction reflect heightened concern about such a consequential technology.
The reported prospectus admission follows a surge in debate about the existential risk question, triggered this month when an Anthropic researcher, Jacob Coxon, resigned warning that people building AI “earnestly believe that it could kill us all by the end of the decade”. . . .
