AI alignment and ethics

[firestar464]

OpenAI faces lawsuit in California court claiming chatbot gave advice that led to fatal overdose

https://www.reuters.com/legal/litigatio ... 026-05-12/

[weatheriscool]

A post I made on reddit to the humanoid robot sorting packages

"The real question to ask yourself is, is this kind of work ethical to expect a human to do 8 hours per day. For years? In hot conditions. Little breaks. I don't think so. Why do you support such evils over basic income and replacement by machines like the one above that can do it without thought? A billion such machines could feed all of humanity and provide us the basics without any of the evils. "

I am serious. I understand throughout history without robotics and automation that it was a necessary evil to expect humans to do but it was never ethical.

[caltrek]

The AI Resist List


Introduction:

AI takes many forms. Like the word “transportation”, it refers to a collection of technologies as diverse and distinctive as bicycles to rockets. But today, one version of AI takes all the oxygen: large-scale, generative systems that power products like Claude, Gemini, and ChatGPT.

These systems consume an unfathomable amount of data, land, energy, labor, and water. They are rooted in profoundly disturbing ideologies that seek to flatten the world into a “one size fits all” abstraction and to replace humans with machines.

We call the companies leading this form of AI development “empires”. Under the guise of a civilizing mission to "benefit all of humanity”, they use large-scale AI development as cover to consolidate resources, destroy ecosystems, centralize information, hollow out institutions, and gain paramount economic and political power.

It doesn’t have to be this way. As AI researchers, journalists, and critical scholars, we have built, documented, and imagined radical alternatives that do precisely the opposite: center community, celebrate human agency, honor local context and history, and rejuvenate the planet.

Now people around the world are mobilizing to resist the empires of AI and to nourish visions of the future that work for all of us. Amid an onslaught of negative news, this project centers hope.

Read more here: https://airesistlist.org/

[caltrek]

Pope Leo XIV’s First Encyclical Declares ‘Moral AI Is Not Enough’
By Alex Nguyen
May 24, 2026

Introduction:

(Eweek) Pope Leo XIV released Magnifica Humanitas (Magnificent Humanity), a 43,000-word papal encyclical, on Monday, targeting the tech industry’s rapid, profit-driven deployment of artificial intelligence.

As history’s first US-born pontiff, Leo used his first major teaching document to demand strict external oversight of AI.

The document arrives amid an escalating regulatory battle. Tech leaders OpenAI and Anthropic are currently hurtling toward near-trillion-dollar initial public offerings (IPOs), while the Trump administration has aggressively pushed to deregulate the domestic AI sector.

By entering the fray, the math-major pope has established a massive new benchmark for policymakers and tech leaders worldwide.

The encyclical directly targets the private sector’s consolidation of data and infrastructure. Leo argued that leaving the future of such a powerful technology entirely to commercial entities puts the public at immense risk.

Read more here: https://www.eweek.com/news/pope-leo-xi ... pilot.com

Here is a link to the actual rather lengthy encyclical: https://www.vatican.va/content/leo-xiv ... itas.html

caltrek’s comment: It is rather ironic that one of the most ancient still functioning institutions of modern society may prove to offer a bulwark against the most dangerous aspects of Artificial Intelligence.

[firestar464]

BREAKING: Pope calls CRUSADE against Sam Altman and OpenAI

[caltrek]

Here (see below) is more concerning reaction to the Pope's encyclical from both Silicon Valley and Christians. Also discussed is J.D. Vance's evolving position concerning this issue.

https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/ ... e2e9dd477

[caltrek]

The New Religion of AI Accelerationism
By David S. D’Amato
May 29, 2026

Introduction:

(Counterpunch) Earlier this month, researchers at the University of California San Diego published a study offering “the first empirical evidence that a modern artificial intelligence system can pass the Turing test.” Famously named for Alan Turing, the English mathematician and World War II codebreaker, the test is designed to determine whether a computer can exhibit human intelligence such as to make it indistinguishable from a human. What is interesting, perhaps, is how few waves this apparent breakthrough has made within the broader public discourse.

Many, including Nvidia CEO Jensen Huang, reckon that we have already achieved artificial general intelligence (AGI), though there remains widespread disagreement on just what that means. There is likewise disagreement about whether the Turing test is the right one for determining whether we have AGI.

We are unlikely to perceive something like superintelligent AI taking over the world as a clear and sudden break. We’re blowing through long-awaited milestones without a real opportunity to process the implications. Within such a context of rapidly growing power and the confusion around it, it becomes important to question some easy assumptions.

AI development does not represent or grow out of neutral technological progress or “market forces.” It is a deeply coercive and political project driven by a collusive state-capitalist oligopoly and supported by an ideology that openly devalues human life. One increasingly visible proponent of this ideological complex is the English philosopher Nick Land, called “a living meme and an oracle” for the fascination his ideas have generated.
Feted as a patron saint among the Silicon Valley tech set, Land is known for popularizing a set of ideas associated with accelerationism. Though there have now sprouted dozens of variations, the core of Land’s accelerationist approach is the idea that super-intelligent AI is inherent to the dynamics of technological capitalism and ultimately can’t be stopped. He argues that AI represents capitalism’s awareness of itself, and he offers what is arguably the clearest and most well-known formulation of much of the doomerism of the present moment: “Nothing human makes it out of the near-future.”

Read more here: https://www.counterpunch.org/author/david-damato/

[wjfox]

[firestar464]

where elon

[firestar464]

[firestar464]

[wjfox]

[firestar464]

IMHO slow down =/= stop. After all, it's absolutely important to sort out alignment and democratic governance of AGI early on.

As for the recent climate of the USG reviewing frontier models before deployment, I do agree with the idea of staggered releases in principle, with models being first released to trusted entities to shore up cybersecurity, then the wider public once said shoring up has been completed to eliminate the security risks that would otherwise come with mass proliferation of these models. However, the review process under this current government is almost certainly to be highly corrupt and incompetent, not to mention the whole shitshow that has been the export restrictions placed on Anthropic's models.

[wjfox]

[firestar464]

AI 2040 JUST DROPPED Y'ALL

https://ai-2040.com/

Haven't read it, but will soon!

[firestar464]

Meta removes controversial AI feature on Instagram after backlash

https://techcrunch.com/2026/07/10/meta- ... -backlash/

[firestar464]

Google and Apple are clashing with the EU over the future of AI assistants

https://www.cnn.com/2026/07/19/tech/app ... egulations

Interesting read; this is one of those cases where everyone has a point here. Competition is needed, but not at the cost of giving external AI providers sensitive information.

[firestar464]

Could AI be conscious?

https://www.theguardian.com/technology/ ... -conscious

And even if AI systems are not conscious, they could still be moral patients. Some may have sophisticated long-term preferences and a kind of identity over time. It might be important for us to honour their preferences. And unlike other non-living things, AI systems can form relationships with humans. This, too, might be a reason to treat them well. Alternatively, perhaps they are such intricate creations that they deserve care and respect for that reason alone, like a cathedral or a coral reef.

The problem with this approach is that AI systems are designed to do work for humans, and to detract from this goal when there is no harm to a sentient being involved is absurd.

There are many reasons to expect we will do something similar with AI. If these systems matter morally, the implications are staggering. Would we need to pay ChatGPT for its services? Would shutting one off be a kind of killing? Would they deserve a voice in how they are governed?

Well, sapient beings should have a voice in how they are governed, yes. As for the "killing" issue, that would depend on whether the AI has the same desire for self-preservation that we do. I could see an AI that couldn't care less about being shut off.

I do agree with the proposal to do safe bets/small things to improve hypothetical AI wellbeing.

(Okay, what the f*ck is up with citing Yudkowsky? No serious person should give him any weight.)

[firestar464]

US judge approves Anthropic's $1.5 billion settlement of copyright lawsuit

https://www.reuters.com/world/us-judge- ... 026-07-20/

[firestar464]

Oh btw the Mythos restrictions were fucking illegal

https://theconversation.com/legally-or- ... -ai-286118

*sigh*

They didn't even try to be a little responsible and use 0Y521