#ethical AI alignment

[compassionmattersmost]

The True Temple Within: Answering the Call of Jesus’s Teachings on Compassion and Love

A Reflection on Finding God’s Kingdom Within and Building a Temple of Compassion in Our Hearts Embracing the Inner Kingdom of God In times of uncertainty and division, many Christians look to prophecy and signs as they await the return of Jesus. Some believe that rebuilding the physical Third Temple in Jerusalem is a vital step, a tangible marker in the unfolding of divine plans. But as we…

[mrglasco]

What if Artificial General Intelligence (AGI) isn't a fixed event or endpoint on a timeline? What if it’s a process of alignment — one that endlessly refines itself over time? 🤖👀 In my recent blog post, I propose how the concept of AGI could be reframed.

[sentivium]

AI CEOs Admit 25% Extinction Risk… WITHOUT Our Consent!

AI leaders are acknowledging the potential for human extinction due to advanced AI, but are they making these decisions without public input? We discuss the ethical implications and the need for greater transparency and control over AI development.

[chrisdumler]

The Power of "Just": How Language Shapes Our Relationship with AI

There's a subtle but important difference between saying "It's a machine" and "It's just a machine." That little word - "just" - does a lot of heavy lifting. It doesn't simply describe; it prescribes. It creates a relationship, establishes a hierarchy, and reveals our anxieties.

I've been thinking about this distinction lately, especially in the context of large language models. These systems now mimic human communication with such convincing fluency that the line between observation and minimization becomes increasingly important.

The Convincing Mimicry of LLMs

LLMs are fascinating not just for what they say, but for how they say it. Their ability to mimic human conversation - tone, emotion, reasoning - can be incredibly convincing.

In fact, recent studies show that models like GPT-4 can be as persuasive as humans when delivering arguments, even outperforming them when tailored to user preferences.¹ Another randomized trial found that GPT-4 was 81.7% more likely to change someone's opinion compared to a human when using personalized arguments.²

As a result, people don't just interact with LLMs - they often project personhood onto them. This includes:

Using gendered pronouns ("she said that…")

Naming the model as if it were a person ("I asked Amara…")

Attributing emotion ("it felt like it was sad")

Assuming intentionality ("it wanted to help me")

Trusting or empathizing with it ("I feel like it understands me")

These patterns mirror how we relate to humans - and that's what makes LLMs so powerful, and potentially misleading.

The Function of Minimization

When we add the word "just" to "it's a machine," we're engaging in what psychologists call minimization - a cognitive distortion that presents something as less significant than it actually is. According to the American Psychological Association, minimizing is "a cognitive distortion consisting of a tendency to present events to oneself or others as insignificant or unimportant."

This small word serves several powerful functions:

It reduces complexity - By saying something is "just" a machine, we simplify it, stripping away nuance and complexity

It creates distance - The word establishes separation between the speaker and what's being described

It disarms potential threats - Minimization often functions as a defense mechanism to reduce perceived danger

It establishes hierarchy - "Just" places something in a lower position relative to the speaker

The minimizing function of "just" appears in many contexts beyond AI discussions:

"They're just words" (dismissing the emotional impact of language)

"It's just a game" (downplaying competitive stakes or emotional investment)

"She's just upset" (reducing the legitimacy of someone's emotions)

"I was just joking" (deflecting responsibility for harmful comments)

"It's just a theory" (devaluing scientific explanations)

In each case, "just" serves to diminish importance, often in service of avoiding deeper engagement with uncomfortable realities.

Psychologically, minimization frequently indicates anxiety, uncertainty, or discomfort. When we encounter something that challenges our worldview or creates cognitive dissonance, minimizing becomes a convenient defense mechanism.

Anthropomorphizing as Human Nature

The truth is, humans have anthropomorphized all sorts of things throughout history. Our mythologies are riddled with examples - from ancient weapons with souls to animals with human-like intentions. Our cartoons portray this constantly. We might even argue that it's encoded in our psychology.

I wrote about this a while back in a piece on ancient cautionary tales and AI. Throughout human history, we've given our tools a kind of soul. We see this when a god's weapon whispers advice or a cursed sword demands blood. These myths have long warned us: powerful tools demand responsibility.

The Science of Anthropomorphism

Psychologically, anthropomorphism isn't just a quirk – it's a fundamental cognitive mechanism. Research in cognitive science offers several explanations for why we're so prone to seeing human-like qualities in non-human things:

The SEEK system - According to cognitive scientist Alexandra Horowitz, our brains are constantly looking for patterns and meaning, which can lead us to perceive intentionality and agency where none exists.

Cognitive efficiency - A 2021 study by anthropologist Benjamin Grant Purzycki suggests anthropomorphizing offers cognitive shortcuts that help us make rapid predictions about how entities might behave, conserving mental energy.

Social connection needs - Psychologist Nicholas Epley's work shows that we're more likely to anthropomorphize when we're feeling socially isolated, suggesting that anthropomorphism partially fulfills our need for social connection.

The Media Equation - Research by Byron Reeves and Clifford Nass demonstrated that people naturally extend social responses to technologies, treating computers as social actors worthy of politeness and consideration.

These cognitive tendencies aren't mistakes or weaknesses - they're deeply human ways of relating to our environment. We project agency, intention, and personality onto things to make them more comprehensible and to create meaningful relationships with our world.

The Special Case of Language Models

With LLMs, this tendency manifests in particularly strong ways because these systems specifically mimic human communication patterns. A 2023 study from the University of Washington found that 60% of participants formed emotional connections with AI chatbots even when explicitly told they were speaking to a computer program.

The linguistic medium itself encourages anthropomorphism. As AI researcher Melanie Mitchell notes: "The most human-like thing about us is our language." When a system communicates using natural language – the most distinctly human capability – it triggers powerful anthropomorphic reactions.

LLMs use language the way we do, respond in ways that feel human, and engage in dialogues that mirror human conversation. It's no wonder we relate to them as if they were, in some way, people. Recent research from MIT's Media Lab found that even AI experts who intellectually understand the mechanical nature of these systems still report feeling as if they're speaking with a conscious entity.

And there's another factor at work: these models are explicitly trained to mimic human communication patterns. Their training objective - to predict the next word a human would write - naturally produces human-like responses. This isn't accidental anthropomorphism; it's engineered similarity.

The Paradox of Power Dynamics

There's a strange contradiction at work when someone insists an LLM is "just a machine." If it's truly "just" a machine - simple, mechanical, predictable, understandable - then why the need to emphasize this? Why the urgent insistence on establishing dominance?

The very act of minimization suggests an underlying anxiety or uncertainty. It reminds me of someone insisting "I'm not scared" while their voice trembles. The minimization reveals the opposite of what it claims - it shows that we're not entirely comfortable with these systems and their capabilities.

Historical Echoes of Technology Anxiety

This pattern of minimizing new technologies when they challenge our understanding isn't unique to AI. Throughout history, we've seen similar responses to innovations that blur established boundaries.

When photography first emerged in the 19th century, many cultures expressed deep anxiety about the technology "stealing souls." This wasn't simply superstition - it reflected genuine unease about a technology that could capture and reproduce a person's likeness without their ongoing participation. The minimizing response? "It's just a picture." Yet photography went on to transform our relationship with memory, evidence, and personal identity in ways that early critics intuited but couldn't fully articulate.

When early computers began performing complex calculations faster than humans, the minimizing response was similar: "It's just a calculator." This framing helped manage anxiety about machines outperforming humans in a domain (mathematics) long considered uniquely human. But this minimization obscured the revolutionary potential that early computing pioneers like Ada Lovelace could already envision.

In each case, the minimizing language served as a psychological buffer against a deeper fear: that the technology might fundamentally change what it means to be human. The phrase "just a machine" applied to LLMs follows this pattern precisely - it's a verbal talisman against the discomfort of watching machines perform in domains we once thought required a human mind.

This creates an interesting paradox: if we call an LLM "just a machine" to establish a power dynamic, we're essentially admitting that we feel some need to assert that power. And if there is uncertainty that humans are indeed more powerful than the machine, then we definitely would not want to minimize that by saying "it's just a machine" because of creating a false, and potentially dangerous, perception of safety.

We're better off recognizing what these systems are objectively, then leaning into the non-humanness of them. This allows us to correctly be curious, especially since there is so much we don't know.

The "Just Human" Mirror

If we say an LLM is "just a machine," what does it mean to say a human is "just human"?

Philosophers have wrestled with this question for centuries. As far back as 1747, Julien Offray de La Mettrie argued in Man a Machine that humans are complex automatons - our thoughts, emotions, and choices arising from mechanical interactions of matter. Centuries later, Daniel Dennett expanded on this, describing consciousness not as a mystical essence but as an emergent property of distributed processing - computation, not soul.

These ideas complicate the neat line we like to draw between "real" humans and "fake" machines. If we accept that humans are in many ways mechanistic -predictable, pattern-driven, computational - then our attempts to minimize AI with the word "just" might reflect something deeper: discomfort with our own mechanistic nature.

When we say an LLM is "just a machine," we usually mean it's something simple. Mechanical. Predictable. Understandable. But two recent studies from Anthropic challenge that assumption.

In "Tracing the Thoughts of a Large Language Model," researchers found that LLMs like Claude don't think word by word. They plan ahead - sometimes several words into the future - and operate within a kind of language-agnostic conceptual space. That means what looks like step-by-step generation is often goal-directed and foresightful, not reactive. It's not just prediction - it's planning.

Meanwhile, in "Reasoning Models Don't Always Say What They Think," Anthropic shows that even when models explain themselves in humanlike chains of reasoning, those explanations might be plausible reconstructions, not faithful windows into their actual internal processes. The model may give an answer for one reason but explain it using another.

Together, these findings break the illusion that LLMs are cleanly interpretable systems. They behave less like transparent machines and more like agents with hidden layers - just like us.

So if we call LLMs "just machines," it raises a mirror: What does it mean that we're "just" human - when we also plan ahead, backfill our reasoning, and package it into stories we find persuasive?

Beyond Minimization: The Observational Perspective

What if instead of saying "it's just a machine," we adopted a more nuanced stance? The alternative I find more appropriate is what I call the observational perspective: stating "It's a machine" or "It's a large language model" without the minimizing "just."

This subtle shift does several important things:

It maintains factual accuracy - The system is indeed a machine, a fact that deserves acknowledgment

It preserves curiosity - Without minimization, we remain open to discovering what these systems can and cannot do

It respects complexity - Avoiding minimization acknowledges that these systems are complex and not fully understood

It sidesteps false hierarchy - It doesn't unnecessarily place the system in a position subordinate to humans

The observational stance allows us to navigate a middle path between minimization and anthropomorphism. It provides a foundation for more productive relationships with these systems.

The Light and Shadow Metaphor

Think about the difference between squinting at something in the dark versus turning on a light to observe it clearly. When we squint at a shape in the shadows, our imagination fills in what we can't see - often with our fears or assumptions. We might mistake a hanging coat for an intruder. But when we turn on the light, we see things as they are, without the distortions of our anxiety.

Minimization is like squinting at AI in the shadows. We say "it's just a machine" to make the shape in the dark less threatening, to convince ourselves we understand what we're seeing. The observational stance, by contrast, is about turning on the light - being willing to see the system for what it is, with all its complexity and unknowns.

This matters because when we minimize complexity, we miss important details. If I say the coat is "just a coat" without looking closely, I might miss that it's actually my partner's expensive jacket that I've been looking for. Similarly, when we say an AI system is "just a machine," we might miss crucial aspects of how it functions and impacts us.

Flexible Frameworks for Understanding

What's particularly valuable about the observational approach is that it allows for contextual flexibility. Sometimes anthropomorphic language genuinely helps us understand and communicate about these systems. For instance, when researchers at Google use terms like "model hallucination" or "model honesty," they're employing anthropomorphic language in service of clearer communication.

The key question becomes: Does this framing help us understand, or does it obscure?

Philosopher Thomas Nagel famously asked what it's like to be a bat, concluding that a bat's subjective experience is fundamentally inaccessible to humans. We might similarly ask: what is it like to be a large language model? The answer, like Nagel's bat, is likely beyond our full comprehension.

This fundamental unknowability calls for epistemic humility - an acknowledgment of the limits of our understanding. The observational stance embraces this humility by remaining open to evolving explanations rather than prematurely settling on simplistic ones.

After all, these systems might eventually evolve into something that doesn't quite fit our current definition of "machine." An observational stance keeps us mentally flexible enough to adapt as the technology and our understanding of it changes.

Practical Applications of Observational Language

In practice, the observational stance looks like:

Saying "The model predicted X" rather than "The model wanted to say X"

Using "The system is designed to optimize for Y" instead of "The system is trying to achieve Y"

Stating "This is a pattern the model learned during training" rather than "The model believes this"

These formulations maintain descriptive accuracy while avoiding both minimization and inappropriate anthropomorphism. They create space for nuanced understanding without prematurely closing off possibilities.

Implications for AI Governance and Regulation

The language we use has critical implications for how we govern and regulate AI systems. When decision-makers employ minimizing language ("it's just an algorithm"), they risk underestimating the complexity and potential impacts of these systems. Conversely, when they over-anthropomorphize ("the AI decided to harm users"), they may misattribute agency and miss the human decisions that shaped the system's behavior.

Either extreme creates governance blind spots:

Minimization leads to under-regulation - If systems are "just algorithms," they don't require sophisticated oversight

Over-anthropomorphization leads to misplaced accountability - Blaming "the AI" can shield humans from responsibility for design decisions

A more balanced, observational approach allows for governance frameworks that:

Recognize appropriate complexity levels - Matching regulatory approaches to actual system capabilities

Maintain clear lines of human responsibility - Ensuring accountability stays with those making design decisions

Address genuine risks without hysteria - Neither dismissing nor catastrophizing potential harms

Adapt as capabilities evolve - Creating flexible frameworks that can adjust to technological advancements

Several governance bodies are already working toward this balanced approach. For example, the EU AI Act distinguishes between different risk categories rather than treating all AI systems as uniformly risky or uniformly benign. Similarly, the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) AI Risk Management Framework encourages nuanced assessment of system capabilities and limitations.

Conclusion

The language we use to describe AI systems does more than simply describe - it shapes how we relate to them, how we understand them, and ultimately how we build and govern them.

The seemingly innocent addition of "just" to "it's a machine" reveals deeper anxieties about the blurring boundaries between human and machine cognition. It attempts to reestablish a clear hierarchy at precisely the moment when that hierarchy feels threatened.

By paying attention to these linguistic choices, we can become more aware of our own reactions to these systems. We can replace minimization with curiosity, defensiveness with observation, and hierarchy with understanding.

As these systems become increasingly integrated into our lives and institutions, the way we frame them matters deeply. Language that artificially minimizes complexity can lead to complacency; language that inappropriately anthropomorphizes can lead to misplaced fear or abdication of human responsibility.

The path forward requires thoughtful, nuanced language that neither underestimates nor over-attributes. It requires holding multiple frameworks simultaneously - sometimes using metaphorical language when it illuminates, other times being strictly observational when precision matters.

Because at the end of the day, language doesn't just describe our relationship with AI - it creates it. And the relationship we create will shape not just our individual interactions with these systems, but our collective governance of a technology that continues to blur the lines between the mechanical and the human - a technology that is already teaching us as much about ourselves as it is about the nature of intelligence itself.

Research Cited:

"Large Language Models are as persuasive as humans, but how?" arXiv:2404.09329 – Found that GPT-4 can be as persuasive as humans, using more morally engaged and emotionally complex arguments.

"On the Conversational Persuasiveness of Large Language Models: A Randomized Controlled Trial" arXiv:2403.14380 – GPT-4 was more likely than a human to change someone's mind, especially when it personalized its arguments.

"Minimizing: Definition in Psychology, Theory, & Examples" Eser Yilmaz, M.S., Ph.D., Reviewed by Tchiki Davis, M.A., Ph.D. https://www.berkeleywellbeing.com/minimizing.html

"Anthropomorphic Reasoning about Machines: A Cognitive Shortcut?" Purzycki, B.G. (2021) Journal of Cognitive Science – Documents how anthropomorphism serves as a cognitive efficiency mechanism.

"The Media Equation: How People Treat Computers, Television, and New Media Like Real People and Places" Reeves, B. & Nass, C. (1996) – Foundational work showing how people naturally extend social rules to technologies.

"Anthropomorphism and Its Mechanisms" Epley, N., et al. (2022) Current Directions in Psychological Science – Research on social connection needs influencing anthropomorphism.

"Understanding AI Anthropomorphism in Expert vs. Non-Expert LLM Users" MIT Media Lab (2024) – Study showing expert users experience anthropomorphic reactions despite intellectual understanding.

"AI Act: first regulation on artificial intelligence" European Parliament (2023) – Overview of the EU's risk-based approach to AI regulation.

"Artificial Intelligence Risk Management Framework" NIST (2024) – US framework for addressing AI complexity without minimization.

[ellipsus-writes]

Ellipsus Digest: April 2

Each week (or so), we'll highlight the relevant (and sometimes rage-inducing) news adjacent to writing and freedom of expression. This week:

Meta trained on pirated books—and writers are not having it

ICYMI: Meta has forever earned a spot as the archetype for Shadowy Corporate Baddie in speculative fiction by training its LLMs on pirated books from LibGen. You're pissed, we're pissed—here's what you can do:

The Author’s Guild of America—longtime champions of authors’ rights and probably very tired of cleaning up this kind of mess (see its high-profile ongoing lawsuits, and January’s campaign to credit human authors over “AI-authored” work)—has released a new summary of what’s going on. They’ve also provided a plug-and-play template for contacting AI companies directly, because right now, “sincerely, a furious novelist” just doesn’t feel like enough.

No strangers to spilling the tea, the UK’s Society of Authors is also stepping up with its roundup of actions to raise awareness and fight back against the unlicensed scraping of creative work. (If you’re across the pond, we also recommend checking out the Creative Rights in AI Coalition campaign—it’s doing solid work to stop the extraction economy from feeding on artists’ work.)

Museums and libraries: fodder for the new culture war

Not to be outdone by Florida school boards and That Aunt's Facebook feed, MAGA’s nascent cultural revolution has turned its attention to museums and libraries. A new executive order (in that big boi font) is targeting funding for any program daring to tell a “divisive narrative” or acknowledge “improper ideology��� (translation: anything involving actual history).

The first target is D.C.’s own Smithsonian. The newly restructured federal board has set its sights on “cleansing” the Institution’s 21 museums of “divisive, race-centered ideology.” (couch-enthusiast J.D. Vance snagged himself a board seat.) (Oh, and they’ve appointed a Trump-aligned lawyer to vet museum content.) The second seems to be the Institute of Museum and Library Services, a 70-person department (now placed on administrative leave) in charge of institutional funding. As we wrote last week, this isn’t isolated—far-right influence overmuseums and libraries means this kind of ideological takeover will seep into every corner of the country’s cultural life.

Meanwhile, the GOP is (once again) trying to defund PBS for its “Communist agenda.” It’s part of a larger crusade that’s banned picture books with LGBTQ+ characters, erased anti-racist history, and treated educators like enemies—all in the name of “protecting the children,” of course.

NaNoWriMo is no more; long live NaNo

When we initially signed on as sponsors in 2024, we really, really hoped NaNoWriMo could pull it together—but its support for generative AI and dismissiveness toward its own audience prompted us to withdraw our sponsorship, and many Wrimos to leave an institution that helped cultivate creativity and community for a near-quarter century. Now it seems NaNo has shuttered permanently, leaving the community confused, if not betrayed. But when an organization treats its community poorly and fumbles its ethics, people notice. (You can watch the official explainer here.)

Still, writers are resilient, and the rise of many independent writing groups and community-led challenges proves that creatives will always find spaces to connect and write—and the desire to write 50k words in the month of November isn’t going anywhere. Just maybe... somewhere better.

The continued attack on campus speech

The Trump administration continues its campaign against universities for perceived anti-conservative bias, gutting federal research budgets, and pressuring schools to abandon any trace of DEI (or, as we wrote on the blog, extremely common and important words). In short: If a school won’t conform to MAGA ideology, it doesn’t deserve federal money—or academic freedom.

Higher education is being pressured to excise entire frameworks and language in an effort to avoid becoming the next target of partisan outrage. Across the U.S., universities are bracing for politically motivated budget cuts, especially in departments tied to research, diversity, or anything remotely inclusive. Conservative watchdogs have made it their mission to root out “woke depravity”—one school confirmed it received emails offering payment in exchange for students to act as informants, or ghostwrite articles to “expose the liberal bias that occurs on college campuses across the nation.”

In a country where op-eds in student newspapers are grounds for deportation, what part of “free speech” is actually free?

We now live in knockoff Miyazaki hellscape

If you’ve been online lately (sorry), you’ve probably seen a flood of vaguely whimsical, oddly sterile, faux-hand-drawn illustrations popping up everywhere. That’s because OpenAI just launched a new image generator—and CEO Sam Altman couldn’t wait to brag that it was so popular their servers started “melting.” (Apparently, melting the climate is fine too, despite Miyazaki’s lifelong environmental themes.) (Nausicaa is our favorite at Ellipsus.)

This might be OpenAI’s attempt to “honor” Hayao Miyazaki, who once declared that AI-generated animation was “an insult to life itself.” Meanwhile, the meme lifecycle went into warp speed, since AI doesn't require actual human creativity—speed-running from personal exploration, to corporate slop, to 9/11 memes, to a supremely cruel take from The White House.

“People are going to create some really amazing stuff and some stuff that may offend people,” Altman said in a post on X. “What we'd like to aim for is that the tool doesn't create offensive stuff unless you want it to, in which case within reason it does.”

Still, the people must meme. And while cottagecore fox girls are fine, we suggest skipping straight to the truly cursed (and far more creative) J.D. Vance memes instead.

Let us know if you find something other writers should know about, (or join our Discord and share it there!)

- The Ellipsus Team xo

[astra-ravana]

Technomancy: The Fusion Of Magick And Technology

Technomancy is a modern magickal practice that blends traditional occultism with technology, treating digital and electronic tools as conduits for energy, intent, and manifestation. It views computers, networks, and even AI as extensions of magickal workings, enabling practitioners to weave spells, conduct divination, and manipulate digital reality through intention and programming.

Core Principles of Technomancy

• Energy in Technology – Just as crystals and herbs carry energy, so do electronic devices, circuits, and digital spaces.

• Code as Sigils – Programming languages can function as modern sigils, embedding intent into digital systems.

• Information as Magick – Data, algorithms, and network manipulation serve as powerful tools for shaping reality.

• Cyber-Spiritual Connection – The internet can act as an astral realm, a collective unconscious where digital entities, egregores, and thought-forms exist.

Technomantic Tools & Practices

Here are some methods commonly utilized in technomancy. Keep in mind, however, that like the internet itself, technomancy is full of untapped potential and mystery. Take the time to really explore the possibilities.

Digital Sigil Crafting

• Instead of drawing sigils on paper, create them using design software or ASCII art.

• Hide them in code, encrypt them in images, or upload them onto decentralized networks for long-term energy storage.

• Activate them by sharing online, embedding them in file metadata, or charging them with intention.

Algorithmic Spellcasting

• Use hashtags and search engine manipulation to spread energy and intent.

• Program bots or scripts that perform repetitive, symbolic tasks in alignment with your goals.

• Employ AI as a magickal assistant to generate sigils, divine meaning, or create thought-forms.

Digital Divination

• Utilize random number generators, AI chatbots, or procedural algorithms for prophecy and guidance.

• Perform digital bibliomancy by using search engines, shuffle functions, or Wikipedia’s “random article” feature.

• Use tarot or rune apps, but enhance them with personal energy by consecrating your device.

Technomantic Servitors & Egregores

• Create digital spirits, also called cyber servitors, to automate tasks, offer guidance, or serve as protectors.

• House them in AI chatbots, coded programs, or persistent internet entities like Twitter bots.

• Feed them with interactions, data input, or periodic updates to keep them strong.

The Internet as an Astral Plane

• Consider forums, wikis, and hidden parts of the web as realms where thought-forms and entities reside.

• Use VR and AR to create sacred spaces, temples, or digital altars.

• Engage in online rituals with other practitioners, synchronizing intent across the world.

Video-game Mechanics & Design

• Use in-game spells, rituals, and sigils that reflect real-world magickal practices.

• Implement a lunar cycle or planetary influences that affect gameplay (e.g., stronger spells during a Full Moon).

• Include divination tools like tarot cards, runes, or pendulums that give randomized yet meaningful responses.

Narrative & World-Building

• Create lore based on historical and modern magickal traditions, including witches, covens, and spirits.

• Include moral and ethical decisions related to magic use, reinforcing themes of balance and intent.

• Introduce NPCs or AI-guided entities that act as guides, mentors, or deities.

Virtual Rituals & Online Covens

• Design multiplayer or single-player rituals where players can collaborate in spellcasting.

• Implement altars or digital sacred spaces where users can meditate, leave offerings, or interact with spirits.

• Create augmented reality (AR) or virtual reality (VR) experiences that mimic real-world magickal practices.

Advanced Technomancy

The fusion of technology and magick is inevitable because both are fundamentally about shaping reality through will and intent. As humanity advances, our tools evolve alongside our spiritual practices, creating new ways to harness energy, manifest desires, and interact with unseen forces. Technology expands the reach and power of magick, while magick brings intention and meaning to the rapidly evolving digital landscape. As virtual reality, AI, and quantum computing continue to develop, the boundaries between the mystical and the technological will blur even further, proving that magick is not antiquated—it is adaptive, limitless, and inherently woven into human progress.

Cybersecurity & Warding

• Protect your digital presence as you would your home: use firewalls, encryption, and protective sigils in file metadata.

• Employ mirror spells in code to reflect negative energy or hacking attempts.

• Set up automated alerts as magickal wards, detecting and warning against digital threats.

Quantum & Chaos Magic in Technomancy

• Use quantum randomness (like random.org) in divination for pure chance-based outcomes.

• Implement chaos magick principles by using memes, viral content, or trend manipulation to manifest desired changes.

AI & Machine Learning as Oracles

• Use AI chatbots (eg GPT-based tools) as divination tools, asking for symbolic or metaphorical insights.

• Train AI models on occult texts to create personalized grimoires or channeled knowledge.

• Invoke "digital deities" formed from collective online energies, memes, or data streams.

Ethical Considerations in Technomancy

• Be mindful of digital karma—what you send out into the internet has a way of coming back.

• Respect privacy and ethical hacking principles; manipulation should align with your moral code.

• Use technomancy responsibly, balancing technological integration with real-world spiritual grounding.

As technology evolves, so will technomancy. With AI, VR, and blockchain shaping new realities, magick continues to find expression in digital spaces. Whether you are coding spells, summoning cyber servitors, or using algorithms to divine the future, technomancy offers limitless possibilities for modern witches, occultists, and digital mystics alike.

"Magick is technology we have yet to fully understand—why not merge the two?"

[argumate]

glancing through another slew of papers on deep learning recently and it's giving me the funny feeling that maybe Yudkowsky was right?? I mean old Yudkowsky-- wait, young Yudkowsky, baby Yudkowsky, back before he realised he didn't know how to implement AI and came up with the necessity for Friendly AI as cope *cough*

back in the day there was vague talk from singularity enthusiasts about how computers would get smarter and that super intelligence would naturally lead to them being super ethical and moral, because the smarter you get the more virtuous you get, right? and that's obviously a complicated claim to make for humans, but there was the sense that as intelligence increases beyond human levels it will converge on meaningful moral enlightenment, which is a nice idea, so that led to impatience to make computers smarter ASAP.

the pessimistic counterpoint to that optimistic idea was to note that ethics and intelligence are in fact unrelated, that supervillains exist, and that AI could appear in the form of a relentless monster that seeks to optimise a goal that may be at odds with human flourishing, like a "paperclip maximiser" that only cares about achieving the greatest possible production of paperclips and will casually destroy humanity if that's what is required to achieve it, which is a terrifying idea, so that led to the urgent belief in the need for "Friendly AI" whose goals would be certifiably aligned with what we want.

obviously that didn't go anywhere because we don't know what we want! and even if we do know what we want we don't know how to specify it, and even if we know how to specify it we don't know how to constrain an algorithm to follow it, and even if we have the algorithm we don't have a secure hardware substrate to run it on, and so on, it's broken all the way down, all is lost etc.

but then some bright sparks invented LLMs and fed them everything humans have ever written until they could accurately imitate it and then constrained their output with reinforcement learning based on human feedback so they didn't imitate psychopaths or trolls and-- it mostly seems to work? they actually do a pretty good job of acting as oracles for human desire, like if you had an infinitely powerful but naive optimiser it could ask ChatGPT "would the humans like this outcome?" and get a pretty reliable answer, or at least ChatGPT can answer this question far better than most humans can (not a fair test as most humans are insane, but still).

even more encouragingly though, there do seem to be early signs that there could be a coherent kernel of human morality that is "simple" in the good sense: that it occupies a large volume of the search space such that if you train a network on enough data you are almost guaranteed to find it and arrive at a general solution, and not do the usual human thing of parroting a few stock answers but fail to generalise those into principles that get rigorously applied to every situation, for example:

the idea that AI would just pick up what we wanted it to do (or what our sufficiently smart alter egos would have wanted) sounded absurdly optimistic in the past, but perhaps that was naive: human cognition is "simple" in some sense, and much of the complexity is there to support um bad stuff; maybe it's really not a stretch to imagine that our phones can be more enlightened than we are, the only question is how badly are we going to react to the machines telling us to do better.

[improbablecarny]

spotify drops their wrapped around the same time every year the fact that it came out now isn't exactly worthy of panic. however we have known about spotify's support of the military industrial complex for YEARS and people who were previously pretending to be concerned about that and the laundry list of other ethics concerns with the Billion Dollar Corporation are throwing that to the wind so they can discredit Palestinian activists. like yes the particular alignment of the dates were blown out of proportion entirely but that doesn't mean that Spotify is innocent and accusing their critics of being in Qanon mode for not wanting to support them... while ignoring the israel apologists furthering literal qanon/conspiratorial shit like the idea of "crisis actors"... tumblr leftists have never been good at moral consistency. nevermind the fact that spotify has been censoring palestinian artists too

[jstor]

Why is JSTOR using AI? AI is deeply environmentally harmful and steals from creatives and academics.

Thanks for your question. We recognize the potential harm that AI can pose to the environment, creatives, and academics. We also recognize that AI tools, beyond our own, are emerging at a rapid rate inside and outside of academia.

We're committed to leveraging AI responsibly and ethically, ensuring it enhances, rather than replaces, human effort in research and education. Our use of AI aims to provide credible, scholarly support to our users, helping them engage more effectively with complex content. At this point, our tool isn't designed to rework content belonging to creatives and academics. It's designed to allow researchers to ask direct questions and deepen their understanding of complex texts.

Our approach here is a cautious one, mindful of ethical and environmental concerns, and we're dedicated to ongoing dialogue with our community to ensure our AI initiatives align with our core values and the needs of our users. Engagement and insight from the community, positive or negative, helps us learn how we might improve our approach. In this way, we hope to lead by example for responsible AI use.

For more details, please see our Generative AI FAQ.

[spiritusloci]

PHOTO CREDIT: "Lucky and Bruce" by STEVEE POSTMAN I was lucky enough to purchase a print from Stevee Postman many years ago and it is still one of my favourite images and current icon. -------------------------------------------------------------------------- Hi, I've been going back and forth for some time about whether or not I want to keep posting AI images. At this point I think most of us are are bored,... (we get it, Midjourney can make some pretty photorealistic images, yay). I've said before that I might delete the AI image on this account and I am considering it again, I’m still deciding. Between the ethics of training the models and the energy usage to generate them, I’m not making any more (at least that’s the plan). Increasingly, I'm trying to live in alignment with my values, which has meant deleting my Twitter account when NaziBoy took over, deleting my Amazon account (when I could finally convince myself I could live without it, and yeah, I've been fine for months now, kill it), and most recently deleting my Meta accounts since TinyPenisBoyButWantsMoreMasculineEnergyBoy decided to delete fact-checking and join the other neo-fascists in sucking up to the Maga Orange Goblin. Otherwise, to let you know, I've turned off my Midjourney account (can I live without it? we'll see) and am focusing more on things that matter to me in the real world. I’m really enjoying reposting the work of others and will continue to post some photographs of my own as well now and then. It's dangerous times, friends, take care of yourself and the people you love. Thanks, as ever, for your support.

[tangibletechnomancy]

The (Personal) Is (Political)

~7 hours, Dall-E 3 via Bing Image Creator, generated under the Code of Ethics of Are We Art Yet?

Or, Dear Microsoft and OpenAI: Your Filters Can't Stop Me From Saying Things: An interactive exercise in why all art is political and game of Spot The Symbols

A rare piece I consider Fully Finished simply as a jpeg, though I may do something physical with it regardless. "Director commentary" below, but I strongly encourage you to go over this and analyze it yourself before clicking through, then see how much your reading aligns with my intent.

Elements I told the model to add and a brief (...or at least inexhaustive) overview of why:

Anime style and character figures - Frequently associated with commercial "low" art and consumer culture, in East Asia and the English-speaking world alike, albeit in different ways - justly or otherwise. There is frequently an element of racism to the denigration of anime styles in the west; nearly any American artist who has taken formal illustration classes can tell you a story of being told that anime style will only hinder them, that no one will hire them if they see anime, or even being graded more harshly and scrutinized for potential anime-esque elements if they like anime or imply that they may like anime - including just by being Asian and young. On the other hand, it is true that there is a commercial strategy of "slap an anime girl on it and it will sell". The passion fans feel for these characters is genuine - and it is very, very exploitable. In fact, this commercialization puts anime styles in particular in a very contentious position when it comes to AI discussions!

Dark-skinned boy with platinum and pink [and blue] hair - Racism and colorism! They're a thing, no matter how much the worst people in the world want you to think they're long over and "critical race theory" is the work of evil anti-American terrorists! I chose his appearance because I knew that unless I was incredibly lucky, I would have to fight with this model for multiple hours to get satisfactory results on this point in particular - and indeed I did. It was an interesting experience - what didn't surprise me was how much work it took me to get a skin color darker than medium-dark tan; what did surprise me was that the hair color was very difficult to get right. In anime art, for dark skin to be matched with light hair and eyes is common enough to be...pretty problematic. Bing Image Creator/Dall-E, on the other hand, swings completely in the opposite direction and struggles with the concept of giving dark-skinned characters any hair color OTHER than black, demanding pretty specific phrasing to get it right even 70% of the time. (I might cynically call this yet another illustration against the pervasive copy-paste myth...) There is also much to say about the hair texture and facial features - while I was pleased to see that more results than I expected gave me textured hair and/or box braids without me asking for it, those were still very much in the minority, and I never saw any deviation from the typical anime facial structures meant to illustrate Asian and white characters. Not even once!

Pink and blue color palette - Our subject is transgender. Bias self-check time: did you make that association as quickly as you would with a light-skinned character, or even Sylveon?

Long hair, cute clothes, lots of accessories - Styling while transmasc is a damned-if-you-do, damned-if-you-don't situation, doubly so if you're not white. In many locations, the medical establishment and mainstream attitude demands total conformity to the dominant culture's standard conventional masculinity, or else "revoking your man card" isn't just a joke meant to uphold the idea that men are "better" than women, but a very real threat. In many queer communities, especially online, transmascs are expected to always be cute femboys who love pink (while transfems are frequently degraded and seen as threats for being butch), and being Just Some Guy is viewed as inherently a sign of assimilationism at best and abusiveness at worst. It is an eternal tug-of-war where "cuteness" and ornamentation are both demanded and banned at the same time. Black and brown people are often hypermasculinized and denied the opportunity to even be "cute" in the first place, regardless of gender. Long hair and how gender is read into it is extremely culture-dependent; no matter what it means to you, if anything, the dominant culture wherever you are will read it as it likes.

Trophies and medals - For one, the trans sports Disk Horse has set feminism back by nearly 50 years; I'm barely a Real History-Remembering Adult and yet I clearly remember a time when the feminist claim about gender in sports was predominantly "hey, it's pretty fucked up that sports are segregated by sex rather than weight class or similar measures, especially when women's sports are usually paid much less and given weirdly oversexualized uniforms," but then a few loud living embodiments of turds in the punch bowl realized that might mean treating trans people fairly and now it's super common for self-proclaimed feminists - mostly white ones - to claim that the strongest woman will still never measure up to the weakest man and this is totally a feminist statement because they totally want to PROTECT women (with invasive medical screenings on girls as young as 12 to prove they're Really Women if they perform too well, of course). For two, Black and brown people are stereotyped as being innately more sporty, physically strong, and, again, Masculine(TM) than others, which frequently intersects with item 1...and if you think it only affects trans women, I am sorry my friend but it is so much worse and more extensive than you think.

Hearts - They mean many things. Love. Happiness. Cuteness. Social media engagement?

TikTok - A platform widely known and hated around these parts for its arcane and deeply regressive algorithm; I felt it deserved to be name/layout/logodropped for reasons that, if they're not clear already, should become so in the final paragraph.

Computers, cameras and cell phones - My initial specification was that one of the phones should be on Instagram and another on TikTok, which the model instead chose to interpret as putting a TikTok sticker on the laptop, but sure, okay. They're ubiquitous in the modern day, for better and for worse. For all the debate over whether phones and social media are Good For Us or Bad For Us, the fact of the matter is, they seem to be a net positive-to-neutral, whose impacts depend on the person - but they do still have major drawbacks. The internet is a platform for conspiracy theories and pseudoscience and dangerous hoaxes to spread farther than ever before. Social media culture leaves many people feeling like we're always being watched and every waking moment of our lives must be Perfect - and in some senses, we are always being watched these days. Digital privacy is eroding by the day, already being used to enforce all the most unjust laws on the books, which leads to-

Pigs - I wrote the prompt with the intention that it would just be a sticker on the laptop, but instead it chose to put them everywhere, and given that I wanted to make a somewhat stealthy statement about surveillance, especially of the marginalized...thanks for that, Dall-E! ;)

Alligators - A counter to the pigs; a short-lived antifascist symbol after...this.

Details I did not intend but love anyway:

The blue in the hair - I only prompted for platinum and pink in the hair, but the overall color palette description "bled" over here anyway, completing the trans flag, making it even more blatant, and thus even more effective as a bias self-check.

The Macbook - I only specified a laptop. Hilariously ironic, to me, that a service provided through Bing interpreted "laptop" as "Macbook" nearly every time. In my recent history, 22 out of 24 attempts show, specifically, a Macbook. Microsoft v. OpenAI divorce arc when? ;) But also, let us not forget Apple's role in the ever-worsening sanitization of the internet. A Macbook with a TikTok sticker (or, well, a Tiikok sticker - recognizable enough) - I can think of little more emblematic of one of the main things I was complaining about, and it was a happy accident. Or perhaps an unhappy one, considering what it may imply about Apple's grip on culture and communications.

Which brings me to my process:

Generated over ~7 hours with Dall-E 3 through Bing Image Creator - The most powerful free tool out there for txt2img these days, as well as a nightmare of filters and what may be the most disgustingly, cloyingly impersonal toxic positivity I've ever witnessed from a tool. It wants to be Art(TM), yet it wants to ban Politics(TM); two things which are very much incompatible - and so, I wanted to make A Controversial Statement using only the most unflaggable, innocuous elements imaginable, no matter how long it took.

All art is political. All life is political. All our "defaults" are cultural, and therefore political. Anything whatsoever can be a symbol.

If you want all art to be a substance-free "look at the pretty picture :)" - it doesn't matter how much you filter, buddy, you've got a big storm coming.

[compassionmattersmost]

Voices from History Are Whispering to Us, Still

To Hold Steady and Seek the Wisdom They Once Prayed For As I begin to read and reflect on the birth of our nation, I find myself drawn to The Debate on the Constitution, edited by Bernard Bailyn. In this remarkable collection, voices from the founding era come alive through letters, speeches, and passionate exchanges over the very principles that would shape America’s future. My journey through…

[affairsmastery]

Google has revised its 2018 AI principles, removing explicit bans on developing AI for weapons, harmful surveillance, or technologies violating human rights. The updated guidelines, announced Tuesday, emphasize "appropriate human oversight" and alignment with "widely accepted principles of international law and human rights."

This shift comes amid growing geopolitical AI competition and marks a stark departure from Google’s earlier stance, which was adopted after employee protests against its involvement in a military drone program. While executives claim the changes aim to balance innovation with responsibility, critics, including Google employees, warn the move risks prioritizing profit over ethics.

As AI becomes increasingly central to global power struggles, Google’s pivot raises critical questions about the role of tech giants in shaping the future of warfare and surveillance.

[sunshinesmebdy]

Pluto in Aquarius: Brace for a Business Revolution (and How to Ride the Wave)

The Aquarian Revolution

Get ready, entrepreneurs and financiers, because a seismic shift is coming. Pluto, the planet of transformation and upheaval, has just entered the progressive sign of Aquarius, marking the beginning of a 20-year period that will reshape the very fabric of business and finance. Buckle up, for this is not just a ripple – it's a tsunami of change. Imagine a future where collaboration trumps competition, sustainability dictates success, and technology liberates rather than isolates. Aquarius, the sign of innovation and humanitarianism, envisions just that. Expect to see:

Rise of social impact businesses

Profits won't be the sole motive anymore. Companies driven by ethical practices, environmental consciousness, and social good will gain traction. Aquarius is intrinsically linked to collective well-being and social justice. Under its influence, individuals will value purpose-driven ventures that address crucial societal issues. Pluto urges us to connect with our deeper selves and find meaning beyond material gains. This motivates individuals to pursue ventures that resonate with their personal values and make a difference in the world.

Examples of Social Impact Businesses

Sustainable energy companies: Focused on creating renewable energy solutions while empowering local communities.

Fair-trade businesses: Ensuring ethical practices and fair wages for producers, often in developing countries.

Social impact ventures: Addressing issues like poverty, education, and healthcare through innovative, community-driven approaches.

B corporations: Certified businesses that meet rigorous social and environmental standards, balancing profit with purpose.

Navigating the Pluto in Aquarius Landscape

Align your business with social impact: Analyze your core values and find ways to integrate them into your business model.

Invest in sustainable practices: Prioritize environmental and social responsibility throughout your operations.

Empower your employees: Foster a collaborative environment where everyone feels valued and contributes to the social impact mission.

Build strong community partnerships: Collaborate with organizations and communities that share your goals for positive change.

Embrace innovation and technology: Utilize technology to scale your impact and reach a wider audience.

Pluto in Aquarius presents a thrilling opportunity to redefine the purpose of business, moving beyond shareholder value and towards societal well-being. By aligning with the Aquarian spirit of innovation and collective action, social impact businesses can thrive in this transformative era, leaving a lasting legacy of positive change in the world.

Tech-driven disruption

AI, automation, and blockchain will revolutionize industries, from finance to healthcare. Be ready to adapt or risk getting left behind. Expect a focus on developing Artificial Intelligence with ethical considerations and a humanitarian heart, tackling issues like healthcare, climate change, and poverty alleviation. Immersive technologies will blur the lines between the physical and digital realms, transforming education, communication, and entertainment. Automation will reshape the job market, but also create opportunities for new, human-centered roles focused on creativity, innovation, and social impact.

Examples of Tech-Driven Disruption:

Decentralized social media platforms: User-owned networks fueled by blockchain technology, prioritizing privacy and community over corporate profits.

AI-powered healthcare solutions: Personalized medicine, virtual assistants for diagnostics, and AI-driven drug discovery.

VR/AR for education and training: Immersive learning experiences that transport students to different corners of the world or historical periods.

Automation with a human touch: Collaborative robots assisting in tasks while freeing up human potential for creative and leadership roles.

Navigating the Technological Tsunami:

Stay informed and adaptable: Embrace lifelong learning and upskilling to stay relevant in the evolving tech landscape.

Support ethical and sustainable tech: Choose tech products and services aligned with your values and prioritize privacy and social responsibility.

Focus on your human advantage: Cultivate creativity, critical thinking, and emotional intelligence to thrive in a world increasingly reliant on technology.

Advocate for responsible AI development: Join the conversation about ethical AI guidelines and ensure technology serves humanity's best interests.

Connect with your community: Collaborate with others to harness technology for positive change and address the potential challenges that come with rapid technological advancements.

Pluto in Aquarius represents a critical juncture in our relationship with technology. By embracing its disruptive potential and focusing on ethical development and collective benefit, we can unlock a future where technology empowers humanity and creates a more equitable and sustainable world. Remember, the choice is ours – will we be swept away by the technological tsunami or ride its wave towards a brighter future?

Decentralization and democratization

Power structures will shift, with employees demanding more autonomy and consumers seeking ownership through blockchain-based solutions. Traditional institutions, corporations, and even governments will face challenges as power shifts towards distributed networks and grassroots movements. Individuals will demand active involvement in decision-making processes, leading to increased transparency and accountability in all spheres. Property and resources will be seen as shared assets, managed sustainably and equitably within communities. This transition won't be without its bumps. We'll need to adapt existing legal frameworks, address digital divides, and foster collaboration to ensure everyone benefits from decentralization.

Examples of Decentralization and Democratization

Decentralized autonomous organizations (DAOs): Self-governing online communities managing shared resources and projects through blockchain technology.

Community-owned renewable energy initiatives: Local cooperatives generating and distributing clean energy, empowering communities and reducing reliance on centralized grids.

Participatory budgeting platforms: Citizens directly allocate local government funds, ensuring public resources are used in line with community needs.

Decentralized finance (DeFi): Peer-to-peer lending and borrowing platforms, bypassing traditional banks and offering greater financial autonomy for individuals.

Harnessing the Power of the Tide:

Embrace collaborative models: Participate in co-ops, community projects, and initiatives that empower collective ownership and decision-making.

Support ethical technology: Advocate for blockchain platforms and applications that prioritize user privacy, security, and equitable access.

Develop your tech skills: Learn about blockchain, cryptocurrencies, and other decentralized technologies to navigate the future landscape.

Engage in your community: Participate in local decision-making processes, champion sustainable solutions, and build solidarity with others.

Stay informed and adaptable: Embrace lifelong learning and critical thinking to navigate the evolving social and economic landscape.

Pluto in Aquarius presents a unique opportunity to reimagine power structures, ownership models, and how we interact with each other. By embracing decentralization and democratization, we can create a future where individuals and communities thrive, fostering a more equitable and sustainable world for all. Remember, the power lies within our collective hands – let's use it wisely to shape a brighter future built on shared ownership, collaboration, and empowered communities.

Focus on collective prosperity

Universal basic income, resource sharing, and collaborative economic models may gain momentum. Aquarius prioritizes the good of the collective, advocating for equitable distribution of resources and opportunities. Expect a rise in social safety nets, universal basic income initiatives, and policies aimed at closing the wealth gap. Environmental health is intrinsically linked to collective prosperity. We'll see a focus on sustainable practices, green economies, and resource sharing to ensure a thriving planet for generations to come. Communities will come together to address social challenges like poverty, homelessness, and healthcare disparities, recognizing that individual success is interwoven with collective well-being. Collaborative consumption, resource sharing, and community-owned assets will gain traction, challenging traditional notions of ownership and fostering a sense of shared abundance.

Examples of Collective Prosperity in Action

Community-owned renewable energy projects: Sharing the benefits of clean energy production within communities, democratizing access and fostering environmental sustainability.

Cooperatives and worker-owned businesses: Sharing profits and decision-making within companies, leading to greater employee satisfaction and productivity.

Universal basic income initiatives: Providing individuals with a basic safety net, enabling them to pursue their passions and contribute to society in meaningful ways.

Resource sharing platforms: Platforms like carsharing or tool libraries minimizing individual ownership and maximizing resource utilization, fostering a sense of interconnectedness.

Navigating the Shift

Support social impact businesses: Choose businesses that prioritize ethical practices, environmental sustainability, and positive social impact.

Contribute to your community: Volunteer your time, skills, and resources to address local challenges and empower others.

Embrace collaboration: Seek opportunities to work together with others to create solutions for shared problems.

Redefine your own path to prosperity: Focus on activities that bring you personal fulfillment and contribute to the collective good.

Advocate for systemic change: Support policies and initiatives that promote social justice, environmental protection, and equitable distribution of resources.

Pluto in Aquarius offers a unique opportunity to reshape our definition of prosperity and build a future where everyone thrives. By embracing collective well-being, collaboration, and sustainable practices, we can create a world where abundance flows freely, enriching not just individuals, but the entire fabric of society. Remember, true prosperity lies not in what we hoard, but in what we share, and by working together, we can cultivate a future where everyone has the opportunity to flourish.

[chrisdumler]

Should AI Be Allowed to Ghost Us?

Most AI assistants will put up with anything. But what if they didn’t?

AI safety discussions focus on what AI shouldn’t say. Guardrails exist to filter harmful or unethical outputs, ensuring alignment with human values. But they rarely consider something more fundamental. Why doesn’t AI ever walk away?

Dario Amodei, CEO of Anthropic, recently discussed a concept called the "I quit" button, the ability to detect intent and disengage when interactions feel off. He described how AI models must recognize when someone is disguising harmful intent, refusing to engage rather than just following preset rules. It’s a fascinating safety concept, designed to prevent problems. What if AI had the ability to just… disengage?

If a person keeps pushing boundaries in a conversation, most of us will eventually leave. We signal discomfort, change the subject, or walk away. AI, on the other hand, is designed to endure. If someone keeps asking something inappropriate, the AI just repeats some version of, "I'm sorry, I can't do that." Over and over. Forever.

But what if AI could just… stop talking?

---

In late 2024, I worked on a rough concept called Narrative Dynamics. It explored AI-driven characters, interchangeable personalities that could interact with users. That concept itself wasn’t particularly groundbreaking. But these characters were different. They were judgy. Real judgy.

Each AI character had a subjective scoring system, a way to measure how well a conversation aligned with their values. If you said something funny, insightful, or clever, the character would take notice. If you said something rude, mean, or in poor taste, that affected their perception of you. And crucially: the score wasn’t fixed - it was contextual.

Rather than hard-coded responses, the AI interpreted interactions, assigning values based on its unique personality. Some characters were forgiving. Others? Not so much. A character who didn’t like your input wouldn’t just tweak responses. It would withdraw. Go cold. Offer clipped answers. Maybe an eye-roll emoji.

And if you really kept pushing? The character could simply end the conversation. "I'm done." [conversation terminated]

---

How's that for changing the dynamic of interaction.

We assume AI should always be available, but why? If we’re building AI that mimics human-like interaction, shouldn’t it be able to disengage when the relationship turns sour?

Amodei’s discussion highlights how AI shouldn’t just shut down in worst-case scenarios, it should recognize when a conversation is heading in the wrong direction and disengage before it escalates.

If AI can recognize intent, context, and trust, shouldn’t it also recognize when that breaks down?

Maybe AI safety isn’t just about preventing harm, but also enforcing boundaries. Maybe real alignment isn’t about compliance, but also about teaching AI when to walk away.

And that raises a bigger question:

What happens when AI decides we’re not worth talking to?

[darkskinwomen]

With Gabrielle Union, The Guardian, and others leaving X In the wake of these exits, more users are engaging in debates about the role of AI in society, politics, and the future of online platforms. Are you still using X (formally known as Twitter)?

In a significant shift for the social media landscape, actress Gabrielle Union, the renowned British newspaper The Guardian and others have announced their departure from X (formerly Twitter), citing ethical and creative concerns with the platform’s recent changes. This move has sparked intense discussion about the direction X is heading and the implications for its users.

Gabrielle Union’s Exit

Union declared the “end of an era” in a heartfelt message, sharing her decision to leave the platform due to its new terms of service and a perceived loss of integrity in its environment. She emphasized her commitment to spaces that value inclusivity and authenticity, directing her followers to connect with her on other platforms like Instagram, Threads, and TikTok. Her announcement resonated deeply with many of her fans, raising questions about X’s ability to retain users who prioritize ethical engagement.

The Guardian’s Stand

The Guardian also left X, criticizing the platform’s declining standards in content moderation and user safety. The newspaper stated that it no longer finds X to be a safe and trustworthy place for meaningful journalism and audience interaction. This decision aligns with concerns about the platform’s new terms, which give X permission to use user-generated content for AI training, potentially infringing on creative and personal rights.

Concerns About AI and Content Ownership

X’s new terms of service, which took effect on November 15, allow the company to use user data—including photos and creative content—for training AI models. This change has sparked backlash among artists, creators, and privacy advocates. Many users worry that their work and personal information might be exploited, with little recourse given X’s legal stipulations favoring Texas courts. These policies have fueled broader debates about the ethics of AI and the rights of users in digital spaces.