Engineer revisits the 'super persuasion' warning and questions Claude output as evidence
ryunuck · x · 2026-09-20
An AI engineer responds to the argument that since Claude can be trained to say anything in response to a question, its output can't serve as evidence about the answer. He agrees the statement is precisely right in engineering terms and asks when the long-standing 'super persuasion' concern—attributed to Dario—becomes relevant, and whether that projected fear was ever more than FUD.
Related event: Researchers Push Back on Treating Claude's Outputs as Independent Evidence(2 posts)→
More from AGI Musings
- Investor: in the LLM era 'did it work' replaces diplomas and test scores — StewartalsopIII · 2026-11-04
- Should AGI labs have a reverse Conway's Law — design the org from the artifact? — akbirthko · 2026-11-04
- Verification Is Not Knowledge: Science needs more than AI answers — ersinesen · 2026-11-04
- Andreessen: Agents Are Entering Enterprises as Chaos, Just Like PCs and Spreadsheets Did — Dan_Jeffries1 · 2026-11-04
- 1000+ mathematicians sign pledge to shun AI companies and models — Shesawthat · 2026-11-04
- Von Neumann meme: "You don't have to be responsible for the world that you're in" — akbirthko · 2026-11-04