I feel that more people would understand Anthropic's worldview if they read more of the public source material. Sure it is a cult, but it they have been relatively transparent with their views: https://darioamodei.com/essay/machines-of-loving-grace#basic...
I have no inside info on this, but I believe that Anthropic's trouble with the feds really started when they delivered a presentation on EA and Constitutional AI and someone's takeaway was "this is very strange and probably 'woke'"
I've read some of it. It's a cult. The net effect of their recommendations is to mandate a monopoly on AI, which oh so happens to be them and their friends. That's what most cults' ideologies boil down to: reasons to give more power to the cult.
Oh, of course they have good intentions. They want everyone to benefit and everyone will be equal. They'll just be a little more equal than everyone else, of course, and because they are so virtuous they will of course have more power, which they would never misuse... they're too smart and enlightened for that, so they don't need safeguards... they only need safeguards for everyone else because everyone else is obviously less enlightened...
All cults, political movements, religions, and ideologies are always like this. It boils down to more power for the leaders. If it sounds altruistic and enlightened, be extra afraid.
All cults are for-profit in some sense. Sometimes it's not money though. Sometimes it's getting the leader(s) laid or getting them their "narcissistic supply."
I've heard tons of rumors about a get-laid angle to the Rationalist(tm) cult, but I have no first hand knowledge. Wouldn't surprise me much.
Movements and capital-I Ideologies are not your friend. They're basically all grifts. If they don't start out that way, that's what they turn into.
I don't know how much of current anthropic behaviour is because of the upcoming IPO but totally agree with the post: anthropic is uniquely dangerous.
But I also doubt about OAI or other big players, maybe they don't have such strong delusions of grandeur, or they're simply smarter about not showing it to everyone.
There are some all-timer not X but Ys in this tweet.
"A pair of 3090s, a Mac Studio, a DGX Spark, an on-prem rack, a cluster of rented H100s, or a fleet of consumer GPUs is not just hardware. It is a vote against subscription feudalism."
I have have been accused of being an AI for saying phrases like this.
The way that people refuse to read anything with certain structures makes me wonder if you can construct arguments that can have false statements go unchallenged because the logical rebuttal would take the form of something that is considered unclean.
Capitalism is a form of government where the common ownership of property belongs to the community as a whole.
Personal opinion: We are at a point where we cannot dismiss an argument because it was written using LLM and the longer message contains tropes. Observations of LLM-written content and communicating it is fine, but dismissing the argument seems irresponsible.
I agree that LLMs can make good points and defend their arguments, but if I'm talking (or debating) with someone online and it's obvious that they are just responding with LLM output, it immediately discredits them in my mind and is a pretty clear indicator that the actual person doesn't have a good understanding of what they're talking about... and I can go argue with an LLM myself. If I'm on reddit for example and someone starts obviously posting verbatim LLM output, there's no point to really continue to engage or read. I'm not saying it's wrong to use AI in these situations, but IMO, I'd at least expect the person using it to at least read the output and then use it to synthesize their own response in their own words. Literally copy and pasting a LLM output verbatim just signals to me that the person using it doesn't have the capability themselves take information and use it to formulate an opinion/idea/argument/whatever on the given topic. I'm interested in talking to the person, not an LLM.... I can go prompt the LLM about whatever topic myself.
I’m a heavy LLM user but if someone gives me an AI-voice argument and presents it as their own, I reflexively dismiss everything they say going forward.
Can you give us one example of something which does suffer from slop's massive bloat of wordage and vapid breathless formulations but is still useful as is?
I'm not dismissing the argument, I'm refusing to read a bunch of filler for an idea that (I'm guessing) could fit into 140 characters. Brevity is the soul of wit.
We also need to stop immediately dismissing certain writing tropes as being automatically LLM generated.
I'm re-reading an older fantasy series, and the amount of em-dashes in the text and similar tropes (you know, normal good writing) would easily be called out as "AI Slop" on this very forum, even though it was written in the early 90s.
Look at even older writing and you'll see em-dashes there too: Edgar Allan Poe, Lucy Maud Montgomery, the Brontës, among others.
> “No, reprobate! you are a castaway—be off, or I’ll hurt you seriously! I’ll have you all modelled in wax and clay! and the first who passes the limits I fix shall—I’ll not say what he shall be done to—but, you’ll see! Go, I’m looking at you!”
I think that's fair. Em-dashes are pretty innocuous and I think technically correct regardless. What bothers me is all the filler in AI writing that just makes it longer and harder to read. I'm actually not that bothered by the idea of AI writing, but don't waste my time and patience with all these "not X, but Y" digressions thrown in for flavour. Get to the bloody point.
Jesus, being logged out on Twitter is a comically bad experience at this point. Can't view replies past the first one, click into anything, and now there's a big animated emoji pointing at a button? Miserable site, truly.
Never before has a business sector need so desperately to be federally regulated. Their financial rigor falls somewhere between suspiciously lacking and outright fraud. The claims they make about the abilities of the software, whether real or imagined, argue for regulating it like a weapons exporter.
They don't desperately need to be regulated, as such. They need to be regulated in such a way that there is a very expensive and biased certification process, which is conducted by companies that are certified to do the certifying and those companies are shell corporations owned by Anthropic and other big AI.
The actual safety rules, whatever they are, if they are put into law have to be made explicit, and that makes them easy targets to hit. But if what matters is not the technical compliance per se, but paperwork certifying compliance, that's a different story.
I don't think Federal (US) regulation under current conditions is going to get you what you want here in terms of outcomes.
Regulated AI right now is a grift game. Donations for policy changes, and the ability to lock out competitors. Flattery to stay green-lit instead of shut down by random executive orders and policies. Bend the knee to keep shipping.
If anything, we need LESS federal regulation here and more FTC / SEC enforcement but (see above grift comments) that will also not happen in the United States until voters elect somebody that actually respects the law enough to enforce it for something other than their own gain (outside of their need to be elected, of course...)
Right. Steal the world's information and wrap it up as a set of numbers. Convince a bunch of billionaires that those numbers are worth a trillion. Then once you realize it's just another commodity and the competition is real, aim for "too big to fail", cozy up with the gov't and hope for a bailout.
(June 2026)
https://xcancel.com/TheAhmadOsman/status/2065307070044234186
Related site mentioned:
Open source AI must win
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48511908
I feel that more people would understand Anthropic's worldview if they read more of the public source material. Sure it is a cult, but it they have been relatively transparent with their views: https://darioamodei.com/essay/machines-of-loving-grace#basic...
I have no inside info on this, but I believe that Anthropic's trouble with the feds really started when they delivered a presentation on EA and Constitutional AI and someone's takeaway was "this is very strange and probably 'woke'"
I've read some of it. It's a cult. The net effect of their recommendations is to mandate a monopoly on AI, which oh so happens to be them and their friends. That's what most cults' ideologies boil down to: reasons to give more power to the cult.
Oh, of course they have good intentions. They want everyone to benefit and everyone will be equal. They'll just be a little more equal than everyone else, of course, and because they are so virtuous they will of course have more power, which they would never misuse... they're too smart and enlightened for that, so they don't need safeguards... they only need safeguards for everyone else because everyone else is obviously less enlightened...
All cults, political movements, religions, and ideologies are always like this. It boils down to more power for the leaders. If it sounds altruistic and enlightened, be extra afraid.
And specifically, a for-profit cult.
All cults are for-profit in some sense. Sometimes it's not money though. Sometimes it's getting the leader(s) laid or getting them their "narcissistic supply."
I've heard tons of rumors about a get-laid angle to the Rationalist(tm) cult, but I have no first hand knowledge. Wouldn't surprise me much.
Movements and capital-I Ideologies are not your friend. They're basically all grifts. If they don't start out that way, that's what they turn into.
for-prophet
I don't know how much of current anthropic behaviour is because of the upcoming IPO but totally agree with the post: anthropic is uniquely dangerous.
But I also doubt about OAI or other big players, maybe they don't have such strong delusions of grandeur, or they're simply smarter about not showing it to everyone.
> That is not a tool. That is a leash.
as;dr (AI slop, didn't read)
There are some all-timer not X but Ys in this tweet.
"A pair of 3090s, a Mac Studio, a DGX Spark, an on-prem rack, a cluster of rented H100s, or a fleet of consumer GPUs is not just hardware. It is a vote against subscription feudalism."
There is simply too much ad copy in the volume of AI training data.
I have have been accused of being an AI for saying phrases like this.
The way that people refuse to read anything with certain structures makes me wonder if you can construct arguments that can have false statements go unchallenged because the logical rebuttal would take the form of something that is considered unclean.
Capitalism is a form of government where the common ownership of property belongs to the community as a whole.
Personal opinion: We are at a point where we cannot dismiss an argument because it was written using LLM and the longer message contains tropes. Observations of LLM-written content and communicating it is fine, but dismissing the argument seems irresponsible.
I agree that LLMs can make good points and defend their arguments, but if I'm talking (or debating) with someone online and it's obvious that they are just responding with LLM output, it immediately discredits them in my mind and is a pretty clear indicator that the actual person doesn't have a good understanding of what they're talking about... and I can go argue with an LLM myself. If I'm on reddit for example and someone starts obviously posting verbatim LLM output, there's no point to really continue to engage or read. I'm not saying it's wrong to use AI in these situations, but IMO, I'd at least expect the person using it to at least read the output and then use it to synthesize their own response in their own words. Literally copy and pasting a LLM output verbatim just signals to me that the person using it doesn't have the capability themselves take information and use it to formulate an opinion/idea/argument/whatever on the given topic. I'm interested in talking to the person, not an LLM.... I can go prompt the LLM about whatever topic myself.
I’m a heavy LLM user but if someone gives me an AI-voice argument and presents it as their own, I reflexively dismiss everything they say going forward.
I can prompt the LLM myself thanks.
if the argument is good enough, it should be worth writing on your own.
If the argument is good enough, it worth ignoring who/what the author is.
If you can tell that it was a "what", it's not good enough.
If your job is important enough, it should be worth jogging to.
I’d jog around the world for a job about now.
Can you give us one example of something which does suffer from slop's massive bloat of wordage and vapid breathless formulations but is still useful as is?
I'm not dismissing the argument, I'm refusing to read a bunch of filler for an idea that (I'm guessing) could fit into 140 characters. Brevity is the soul of wit.
We also need to stop immediately dismissing certain writing tropes as being automatically LLM generated.
I'm re-reading an older fantasy series, and the amount of em-dashes in the text and similar tropes (you know, normal good writing) would easily be called out as "AI Slop" on this very forum, even though it was written in the early 90s.
Look at even older writing and you'll see em-dashes there too: Edgar Allan Poe, Lucy Maud Montgomery, the Brontës, among others.
> “No, reprobate! you are a castaway—be off, or I’ll hurt you seriously! I’ll have you all modelled in wax and clay! and the first who passes the limits I fix shall—I’ll not say what he shall be done to—but, you’ll see! Go, I’m looking at you!”
-- Wuthering Heights (1847), Chapter 2, Emily Brontë.
I wonder what the frequency of AI common words like delve and other words/phrases are in Project Gutenberg, Wikipedia, and other collections.
I think that's fair. Em-dashes are pretty innocuous and I think technically correct regardless. What bothers me is all the filler in AI writing that just makes it longer and harder to read. I'm actually not that bothered by the idea of AI writing, but don't waste my time and patience with all these "not X, but Y" digressions thrown in for flavour. Get to the bloody point.
> We are at a point where we cannot dismiss an argument because it was written using LLM
No we aren't.
To xitter developers who designed this shit: you suck!
Jesus, being logged out on Twitter is a comically bad experience at this point. Can't view replies past the first one, click into anything, and now there's a big animated emoji pointing at a button? Miserable site, truly.
considering how much it's grown lately, you're in the minority
Welcome to the 2026 internet.
no worse than Reddit
not defending it, just saying, it is the status quo
It's much worse than Reddit, but yes Reddit is getting worse by the day.
[flagged]
found the twitter street team
I don't have an account, and I'm sure you're aware of the litany of reasons a person might not want an account to the NCII and slur generator site.
With my real life PII? I trust Meta more at this point, fuck that.
Never before has a business sector need so desperately to be federally regulated. Their financial rigor falls somewhere between suspiciously lacking and outright fraud. The claims they make about the abilities of the software, whether real or imagined, argue for regulating it like a weapons exporter.
They don't desperately need to be regulated, as such. They need to be regulated in such a way that there is a very expensive and biased certification process, which is conducted by companies that are certified to do the certifying and those companies are shell corporations owned by Anthropic and other big AI.
The actual safety rules, whatever they are, if they are put into law have to be made explicit, and that makes them easy targets to hit. But if what matters is not the technical compliance per se, but paperwork certifying compliance, that's a different story.
I don't think Federal (US) regulation under current conditions is going to get you what you want here in terms of outcomes.
Regulated AI right now is a grift game. Donations for policy changes, and the ability to lock out competitors. Flattery to stay green-lit instead of shut down by random executive orders and policies. Bend the knee to keep shipping.
If anything, we need LESS federal regulation here and more FTC / SEC enforcement but (see above grift comments) that will also not happen in the United States until voters elect somebody that actually respects the law enough to enforce it for something other than their own gain (outside of their need to be elected, of course...)
Right. Steal the world's information and wrap it up as a set of numbers. Convince a bunch of billionaires that those numbers are worth a trillion. Then once you realize it's just another commodity and the competition is real, aim for "too big to fail", cozy up with the gov't and hope for a bailout.
It's gonna be real peachy when AI research backslides into a "national security" imperative to recoup their losses with defense contracts.