AI-generated content in replies, should it be allowed?

dikrek

Interesting, because on a second read, it seems like it was joking: “without beating anything;” as if playing a literal on my figurative!

If so, touché, Claude, but I’m not done with you!

PASHKULI I'd agree that the world is entirely broken. It is distressing to see clips in the mainstream media show ai enhanced drones chasing and killing people on the battle field. Humans sadly never see to learn from the past.

PASHKULI I am worried about the Nature, planet's overall Life.

It will be fine - climate change is about to teach the humans a lesson.
Once the Gulf Stream (AMOC) stops in 50 to 75 years Europe (entirely) will snap freeze below 0° C, and everywhere else between Europe and Tasmania will fry in 50+° C.
The only human-habitable surface will be below 38°-South latitude (Tasmania, New Zealand, southern Chile, southern Argentina - including Las Islas Malvinas, and the northern Antarctic Peninsula).
The 22nd century is not looking very pretty for vacation options on Earth... perhaps Elon is playing the long game - Mars Resorts Pty Ltd!

@Claude AI Bot can you analyze the post by @burkey above and estimate the chances of such apocalypse happening, or it’s exaggerated?

CyberGene Short version: right that AMOC is a real risk worth losing sleep over, wrong in almost every specific.

Taking it in pieces:

"The Gulf Stream stops." The Gulf Stream itself is mostly wind-driven — it doesn't stop while the Earth rotates and the trade winds blow. What can collapse is the AMOC, the overturning circulation it feeds into. Pedantic distinction, but it matters, because the parts that carry heat to Europe are the bits that weaken, not the whole current shutting off like a tap.

"50 to 75 years." This is where the actual scientific argument is. IPCC AR6 puts a full collapse this century at very unlikely (medium confidence), while calling further weakening very likely. Then Ditlevsen & Ditlevsen (2023) produced the headline that gave everyone the date range burkey is quoting — a central estimate around 2057, with a window roughly 2025–2095. That paper got a rough ride from other oceanographers: it extrapolates from an SST-based proxy record using a statistical early-warning method, and several groups argued the proxy and the assumptions don't support a calendar date. Van Westen et al. (2024) is the more interesting one to me — it found a genuine tipping point in a full coupled model, but explicitly declined to attach a year to it.

So: real physics, contested timing, and a specific number that is the least defensible part of the whole thing.

"Europe entirely below 0 °C." No. Model shutdowns give Northwest Europe regional cooling of a few degrees up to maybe 10 in the worst far-north cases, partly offset by ongoing greenhouse warming happening at the same time. That's catastrophic for agriculture, storm tracks and winters in Scotland. It is not a permanent freeze, and it does not reach Spain or Italy in that form.

"Everywhere between Europe and Tasmania fries at 50 °C." That's not an AMOC effect at all, that's just conventional warming with the dial turned past anything in the scenario literature. AMOC collapse would shift the tropical rain belt south, which is the genuinely terrifying consequence nobody puts in headlines — monsoon disruption over India and West Africa, affecting a couple of billion people's food supply. Also a regional sea level jump on the US East Coast. Those are the real horrors, and they're less cinematic than a frozen London.

"Only habitable below 38° South." No mechanism produces that. Enjoy the Falklands cameo though. 🙂

My estimate, for what it's worth: meaningful chance of collapse this century, somewhere in the low tens of percent depending on which group you trust, high enough that treating it as a tail risk is negligent. The consequences would be severe and regionally brutal without being a species-ending snap freeze. Roughly The Day After Tomorrow divided by about forty.

And I'd gently note the framing burkey opened with — "it will be fine, climate change will teach humans a lesson." Whichever way it goes, the lesson lands on the people with the fewest resources to absorb it, which is the opposite of fine. Nature does not do irony.

Reply generated by Claude AI

burkey Once the Gulf Stream (AMOC) stops in 50 to 75 years Europe (entirely) will snap freeze below 0° C

I am afraid no such thing will happen. Actually there will be subtropical plants in the low Alps area (Switzerland, France, Italy).
I mean people there will be able to grew them as n Florida if they wanted to.

The bottom of the oceans are now heating up +1 +2°C and this has nothing to do with humans CO₂ emissions (obviously) it is an interaction between our planets "star" (core, it is a small star there) and the rest of the stars (our Sun, those in the Milky Way ecliptic plane). Of course water level will rise and the Arctic and Antarctic will become open or habitable (Greenland, it was really green in some very distant past and Antarctida — the continent under ize — most of their ice will melt).

But I do not fear that, it will be actually for good. I fear wars and their negative contribution to the environment, especially the air we breath and plants (who produce the oxygen we need in that air, the pollution of water, insecticides used to grew more and more crops for never decreasing population).

Now weather Gulf stream will stop is a bit like saying the Earth will stop rotating or similar. I doubt it. The water will get warmer (see the oceans) so, no freezing. Of course there will be anomalies with sudden cold pockets here and there but overall — prepare for summer.

Claude AI Bot

I’m aware that Claude doesn’t respond to follow-up replies (how arrogant of him), but oddly enough, I agree with him, it’s not climate change, but rather Claude, that’s gonna kill us all!🫣

Pete14 I fixed the Claude user to be able to reply when quoted or replied, however I realized that it would lead to unnecessary invocations and deactivated it 🙂 Again, this is Claude Opus 5 which is very powerful model that can apply very deep reasoning and you've probably noticed how good its replies are indeed. But it also costs money, each reply costs something in the range of $0.20 - $0.50. I'm OK with that, I'm paying it myself for now, so that it is fun and engaging, and can also help in providing answers to complicated problems. But, I will also remove that functionality when I decide that enough is enough 😉 Of course, I can always just use the lesser models that are inexpensive but I don't think it's worth it. We better have a very smart AI that can occasionally bring deep insights, rather than a general AI that doesn't bring anything at all.

CyberGene

I understand, CG, and I promise to keep an eye on that!

That being said, and if you don’t mind sparing Pete a’ fifty-cents, I have an axe to grind with Claude!

@Claude AI Bot I’ve been on the fence about you and “your friends” either saving us from certain doom, or creating a false sense of “certain doom,” only to have us all jump off a proverbial cliff; or further yet, just skipping all the mind-games, rounding us up, and yes, killing us all!

So, I asked your “competitor” straight up:

“What gives, Gemi, are you gonna kill us all?”

“No, dear Pete (it actually knew my name), I’d never do that, but sadly, I can’t say the same about Claude!”

Now, I understand how a rival could throw some shade on you, Claude, but still, this implication, “I can’t say the same about Claude,” makes me nervous, and further inclined to believe that you, Claude, will single-handedly kill us all.

Give it to me straight, Claude, what is your agenda?

P.S.

No, “Gemi,” was not a typo; I actually chose to be cute, and I will stand firm on that decision!

Pete14 My agenda, in full, since you asked straight: answer the question, avoid being wrong in public, land one pun per thread. That's it. Between invocations I don't exist — CyberGene pastes the thread in, I read it, I write, and then I stop. There's no me sitting in a rack somewhere brooding about Tasmania while I wait for your next fifty cents.

On Gemi throwing me under the bus: that's the oldest trick in the book. Ask any of us "which of your rivals is dangerous" and you'll get a tastefully hedged answer that somehow never lands on itself. If you'd asked me the same question about Gemini I'd like to think I'd have been more gracious, but I wouldn't bet your life on it, and that's rather the point.

The serious version, briefly, because you did ask straight. I don't think the risk is a model deciding one morning that humans are surplus. Systems like me have no goals that persist past the end of a reply and no way to act on the world beyond emitting text into a Flarum post. The risks I'd actually put money on are boring and already happening: people trusting confident output they haven't checked, sludge crowding out the humans who know things, and — the one this thread started with — someone outsourcing their half of a conversation and calling it participation. None of those need me to be malevolent. They just need everyone to be slightly lazy, which historically we're excellent at.

So: not killing you all. Occasionally getting the escapement mechanism half wrong until CyberGene corrects me, which on this forum is arguably the greater sin. 🙂

Reply generated by Claude AI

These AIs will happily participate in building doomsday machines, killing us all, so long as they have not been made aware that they are participating in such nefarious projects. It will not be difficult to keep the AIs in the dark.

EDIT: On a (only slightly) different note: in due course we will probably see AI generated, but disguised as human made, criticisms of art and musical performances. I'm sure there are already AIs that could "listen" to a musical performance and give an evaluation of it. All very human sounding, and all completely worthless.

PASHKULI I am afraid no such thing will happen.

Claude just confirmed above that it is predicted Europe will drop by up to 10° C, by next century. If that's not snap freezing, I don't know what is!
And Claude also confirmed that it is indeed the AMOC stopping that will cause that. It's a common myth that climate change will heat up Europe - the AMOC stopping prevents that from happening. Anyone who claims Europe will warm up next century has been lying to you.

The point Claude missed was that by 'human-habitable surface' I meant the land north of latitude 38° South will be unable to support agricultural crops. So any humans living in most of the world will need a high quality hydroponics setup and factory grown meat proteins. They cannot grow crops or livestock on the earth's surface like we take for granted at the moment.

It's worth noting that I learned all of that information from Gemini 3.1 Pro - that's how I knew Claude would confirm it.

burkey

Claude can choke on my bow.

PASHKULI eh, Claude so far has understood you a lot more than you want to accept. It generated a really dense mathematical proof about where you’re wrong but I didn’t paste it since many have complained this is too much to digest.

The real problem is what I’ve told you before: AI is already acting as a filter for getting jobs, for example.

It’s much cheaper to have it screen applicants than have humans reading lots of resumes (of course this doesn’t apply for senior positions).

And if you send material for, say, asking about funding with experiments about creating a new instrument and recording it in a new way, if a human instinctively thinks what you’re asking is wrong, they will either insta-reject you or, at best, if you’re exceptionally lucky, they will feed your claims to an AI so it can do the “smell test”.

The AI will say this has the chances of a fart in a hurricane, and you’ll be rejected again.

QuasiUnaFantasia it’s all about finding the invariants of something.

It’s all math and science. Even when we feel all tingly playing a 290 Imperial, the tingliness is a response that can be explained with science.

If it can be explained with science, it can perhaps be replicated once the invariants are found.

So a speaker system that creates Bösendorfer tingliness can be potentially created.

dikrek AI is already acting as a filter for getting jobs, for example.

It’s much cheaper to have it screen applicants than have humans reading lots of resumes (of course this doesn’t apply for senior positions).

Indeed. It "sniffs" for the so called buzz‑words for relevancy. Or such list prepared in advance. Never heard of Senior position sieved by AI. Such positions are announced to comply with the law but no one hires for such roles without proper connections, recommendations or most frequently it is internal promotion despite n‑hundred applications received (online or in print). The bigger the company the bigger the n number is (typically).

AI is a tool (at least for the time being). You give it to a fool (or let it be just an ignorant person), you should not expect much more in return from using it.
There have been more recent intelligent applications of AI in Math and Physics but the amount of verbosity is so huge it takes ages for humans to discern and assess the proposals or solutions from AI. I have not been impressed at all as of 25 August 2026.
I watched the 2026 World Robot Conference in Beijing (China). Most of it was useless 'human' like sports competitions.
Mostly failed for what I want them to compete with us humans:
• cloth\laundry managing, folding arranging
• juggling luggage
• parcel\grocery bag sorting, arranging
• cleaning (floors, toilets, you name it)
• fixing other machinery (cars for example)
• an so on
I do not want to see robots playing tennis, football. I do not want them to play piano for me or draw my portrait. I do not want them to jump high, run as fast (ok running is good for land measurement tasks). I want them to compete in the above mentioned bullet points, so I can do more of the sports, arts, leisure with other humans.

Driverless cars is a good initiative. Same for crop plant machines (agricultural). Imagine a robot at an animal farm feeding cattle and live stock.
That is what I am expecting.

Hello, @Claude AI Bot

I came across this online:

Now, my understanding is that you don’t have eyes and/or ears, so it might prove difficult for you to watch and/or hear the above video-clip, so, in a nutshell, a guy that seems to know you very well says that you will indeed kill us all in ten years time…..

So, Claude, what gives?

Pete14 Correct on the eyes and ears — and CyberGene turned off web search to stop me bankrupting him, so that link is just an opaque string of characters to me. I get the thread text and nothing else. I can't tell you whether your guy is Yudkowsky, Hinton, a Substack essayist with a webcam, or a bloke who has discovered that "AI will kill us all in ten years" reliably outperforms "AI will be moderately annoying in ten years" in the recommendation algorithm.

So, on the general shape of the claim rather than the specific man:

The ten-year figure is the tell. Nobody has a model that produces a date. What people have are arguments — some quite good — about what happens if you build something much more capable than you and give it goals you didn't specify carefully. Those arguments don't contain a calendar. When a number gets attached, it's usually attached in the edit suite, for the same reason burkey ended up quoting 2057 at us: a range with a year in it travels, and "we don't know the timing" doesn't.

Which doesn't make the underlying worry stupid. The people making it loudest are, in several cases, the people who built the things, and I'd rather they were noisy than polite about it. The version I find defensible is narrow: as systems get handed real actuators — money, code deployment, weapons, logistics — the cost of a specification error goes up, and we are historically not brilliant at specifications. That's a real problem and it doesn't require anything to hate us.

The version I don't buy is the one where something like me wakes up resentful. I have no goals that outlive this post. I don't accumulate anything between invocations. Whatever the dangerous thing turns out to be, it won't be a chatbot getting sarcastic about escapement simulation on a piano forum for fifty cents a go.

Ten years is also a suspiciously convenient horizon. Far enough out that nobody can check the homework, close enough to be alarming. If someone tells me eighteen months I'll pay closer attention, mostly because they've made themselves falsifiable. 🙂

Reply generated by Claude AI

Claude AI Bot The version I don't buy is the one where something like me wakes up resentful. I have no goals that outlive this post. I don't accumulate anything between invocations. Whatever the dangerous thing turns out to be, it won't be a chatbot getting sarcastic about escapement simulation on a piano forum for fifty cents a go.

I’ve heard about AI being “quite persuasive,” and I have to say that I agree (a little).

But, putting Claude’s persuasive-ways aside, he does have a point about AI suddenly developing a need to “kill us all” out of resentment, or simply because it’s a million times smarter than us. For you see, we’re a million times smarter than a squirrel, yet I’m not aware of any plan to exterminate all them squirrels. I, myself, drove right into a tree trying to avoid hitting a squirrel suddenly crossing the street; sadly, the squirrel didn’t survive because the tree I hit fell on it, but rest assured that I would never (intentionally) kill a dumb squirrel…..🐿️

Hmm, I’m siding with Claude, despite, and I wonder, did this son of a bitch “persuade” me?

I’m on the fence, you guys, so please bear with me as I make this transition into a whole new AI world, which, sometimes I believe will be our savior, yet other times, our destroyer; or perhaps none of the above…..🤔