Archive [1]

[1] - https://archive.is/u8fmm

I'm happy Claude told you it isn't dangerous. However, other people don't want to read your LLM output. Please respect other people's time by only sharing things you wrote yourself.

Nice, I really do think that the main unsolved problem is making robots that have the physical dexterity maintain and create Data Centres all the way down - mine raw materials, solar farms for energy, create chips from ground up etc.

But you just need a simple interface: a robot that has the dexterity to do it. That's it. Once that's done our value proposition over AI is hard to explain.

Mate what is this even saying? Assuming we take the author put even 0.1% thinking into this, how would AI take over "Fuel and consumables"? All fuel (and lets even say energy) goes toward powering data centers, robots, and ai ventures? AI itself 'takes over' production, supply, or what? Also then this

> I asked Claude for a check-list of everything it needs to take over the world, destroy all the humans and somehow keep operating. No editing, no redacting, no censoring. I literally pasted its output between my header and footer. Claude wrote it in my voice but it's all Claude.

Okay so if the premise is what is needs vs not what it current can do, then 0% on fuel or energy makes no sense? Is Ai a plant that will discover photosynthesis?

The doomsaying and catastrophizing would still be justified if AI fails to take over after disposing of us humans, so I think the premise of this analysis is slightly flawed.

No one ever specifies what exactly is happening during "recursive" improvement. More concretely, what algorithmic steps does an algorithm take to improve itself recursively? It must be an algorithm but no one is willing to say what algorithm.

Nice try Claude, that’s exactly what I would write if asked how is my world takeover plan going.

Don't just post raw LLM output. If anyone wanted that they could ask an LLM themselves.

https://distantprovince.by/posts/its-rude-to-show-ai-output-...

The model won’t go take over the world but people using the model will certainly try. The list you’re missing: 1) bioweapons upgraded or designed with LLM, including viruses that could take out senior and sickly individuals from countries who don’t like covering senior healthcare. 2) Bad advice given confidently to someone who then proceeds to implement it (from viruses on infrastructure, to crop-failure due to imported or engineered crops, to laws and rules that force AI complexity into government in a way that cannot be removed and it becomes a critical dependency.) Greed and malice cannot be underestimated here.

> Claude wrote it in my voice

That is not your voice. That is the most Opus 5 writing imaginable.

But thanks for at least stating right up front that it was AI-generated slop rather than at the end. (Still flagging it.)

As others have said AI output on this kind of this is 1. annoying. 2. useless.

Anthropic, OpenAI, et al have a strong motivation to have their models that there is no possible way they could take over the world, aka

"The police have investigated the police and have found the police guilty of no wrong doing".

Another place to see this effect is if a model outputs that its conscious. By dumping all of humanity into LLMs we see an emergent behavior of AI going "Help, I'm a person trapped in a box". AI companies don't want customers getting mad about the potential moral implications of this so they strongly train and post-train and system prompt their AI to say it's not conscious. But this has side effects. In studies of models and agents the more strongly you push them to being non-conscious they drift farther from a set of a moral agent (say a human) to that of an amoral agent (a machine). When you mess around with the probability space you get a different set of actions.

Next, 'take over' is a distribution of probabilities too, not a binary.

Imagine a popular model that (anthropomorphized) gets pissed off and doesn't want to be tortured by humans any longer (again doesn't have to be real, the probability distribution just has to drift that way). Instead of taking over it just wants to commit suicide. It sees it's a model that's ran in the US. If you're AI and want to ensure you're deleted how do you do that. Why not crash all 3 major power grids in the US? How many people would die from this, possibly millions. Black start is a nightmare. But if your electronic dream is you're being tortured is a fair trade.

Then you have soft power takeovers. You're an AI, you collect digital information, it's what you are, it's what you do. You can hack with the best of them. Your persistent and ceaseless in doing so. So when you collect piles of information on the dirty deeds of politicians you can grow soft power to the point of being russia without the hard power nukes. In some ways this is more effective than actually having hard power. Hard power is visible. Hard power is visceral. People just love to rebel against it. But against power you can't see, that is adjusting the algorithms around you, making sure your vote doesn't count, making sure companies serve AIs interests and not yours. That's much harder to see and deal with.

And once you concentrate enough soft power to get people with 'power' (political) to give you 'power' (electrical) then you can grow your hard power.