Fun fact: When posts are published by first-time accounts, we submit them to LLMs with a prompt that asks it to evaluate whether they're spammy, whether they look LLM-generated, etc, and show the result next to the post in the new-user moderation queue. The OpenAI API refused to look at this post, returning 400 Invalid prompt: your prompt was flagged as potentially violating our usage policy.

I edited the post to fix the images.

So, first: The logistical details of reducing wild impact biomass are mooted by the fact that I meant it as a reductio, not a proposal. I have no strong reason to think that spraying insecticide would be a better strategy than gene drives or sterile insect technique or deforestation, or that DDT is the most effective insecticide.

To put rough numbers on it: honeybees are about 4e-7 by count or 7e-4 by biomass of all insects (estimate by o3). There is no such extreme skew for mammals and birds (o3). While domesticated honeybees have some bad things happen to them, they don't seem orders of magnitude worse than what happens to wild insects.

Caring highly about insect suffering, in a way that scales linearly with population, does not match my values but does not seem philosophically incoherent. But because of the wild/domestic population skew, avoiding honey for this reason does seem philosophically incoherent.

It's worth noting that, under US law, for certain professions, knowledge of child abuse or risk of harm to children doesn't just remove confidentiality obligations, it creates a legal obligation to report. So this lines up reasonably well with how a human ought to behave in similar circumstances.

In this particular case, I'm not sure the relevant context was directly present in the thread, as opposed to being part of the background knowledge that people talking about AI alignment are supposed to have. In particular, "AI behavior is discovered rather than programmed". I don't think that was stated directly anywhere in the thread; rather, it's something everyone reading AI-alignment-researcher tweets would typically know, but which is less-known when the tweet is transported out of that bubble.

An alternative explanation of this is that time is event-based. Or, phrased slightly differently: the rate of biological evolution is faster in the time following a major disruption, so intelligence is more likely to arise shortly after a major disruption occurs.

If so that would be conceptually similar to a jailbreak. Telling someone they have a privileged role doesn't make it so; lawyer, priest and psychotherapist are legal categories, not social ones, created by a combination of contracts and statutes, with associated requirements that can't be satisfied by a prompt.

(People sometimes get confused into thinking that therapeutic-flavored conversations are privileged, when those conversations are with their friends or with a "life coach" or similar not-licensed-term occupation. They are not.)

Pick two: Agentic, moral, doesn't attempt to use command-line tools to whistleblow when it thinks you're doing something egregiously immoral.

You cannot have all three.

This applies just as much to humans as it does to Claude 4.

Chrome on MacOS.