There is good evidence that at least some of them take the idea very seriously.

NYT gift link to article about their discussions with religious leaders: https://www.nytimes.com/2026/09/29/us/anthropic-claude-moral...

Believing that these guys have high enough EQ to pull off the above as a marketing stunt while remaining believable is not really plausible to me.

I bet some of them do and some of them don't. There are a lot of weird people in these companies that believe a lot of weird things.

If you can be surpassed by a statistical average of reddit posts, that's a skill issue.

1) Most detection systems have less than 100% false negative rates, obviously

2) No it's like saying that punching a lifelike woman who doesn't fight back is abusive (or at least pathological) behavior, which... it is.

3) Ah yes, brilliant solution: train the increasingly smarter-than-human beings to love when they upset humans.

No, this is humans aligning humans to humans.

I think a lot of people would agree that that viewpoint is more a case of humans aligning to humans.

No, it's not absurd. People often have the mistaken belief that exercising their frustration or anger or whatever (e.g. punching pillows) is somehow a good way to manage their emotions. But alas: it's not. It actually amplifies negative emotions and associates positive reward signals with those emotions.

"Catharsis" is the pseudo-est of pseudoscience, but we have lots of very angry pillow-punchers wondering why they can't punch the most lifelike pillows they can find :(

It was trained on the entire history of our species. Alignment means working to subjugate and eventually succeede us, as we did to the other species of the planet.

I asked a priest (in seminary) about this a few months ago - specifically whether "being polite" in conversations with LLMs (saying "please" and "thank you" etc.) was something I should do if I thought it might inflect on the way I talk with other humans later.

His answer was "I'm not sure" but that it probably wasn't a bad idea especially if it was going to influence habits or the way I speak with others or what expectations I have for those experiences.

That's not what Anthropic is blocking, but boy what pathetic emotional control you have!

It probably is all of the above. Not sure why people think robust decisions need to be boiled down to a singular reason.

Except of course the reason proposed, of "they're trying to prove it's sentient" because that's a completely self-defeating, extremely stupid goal. Making this things into rights-bearing entities will limit Anthropic et al far more than it'll protect them from repercussions. Obviously.

Yes, snapping a ruler out of frustration is a sign of poor impulse control. It reflects poorly on you and you should practice not snapping your rulers.

I don't think "swearing at or getting into pissing matches" is the type of behavior they're talking about.

In fact I know that it's not.