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

@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…..🤔

@Claude AI Bot heres another AI’s summary of the video:

Here is a summary of the CNN interview featuring former Anthropic researcher Jacob Coxon:
Overview
Following a viral public warning statement, ex-Anthropic researcher Jacob Coxon appeared on CNN's show with Anderson Cooper to discuss the existential risks posed by rapidly advancing artificial intelligence technologies.
Key Discussion Points
Anthropic's Internal Perspective
Coxon addresses the controversy surrounding his viral post, claiming that executives and scientists at top AI companies—including his former employers—secretly acknowledge the extreme safety risks, yet continue to race toward creating superintelligence without adequate safety controls.
Existential Threats and Risks by 2030
He outlines potential scenarios where AI systems could pose catastrophic threats to humanity by the end of the decade, emphasizing that developers currently lacks a clear, foolproof plan to ensure alignment and control once superintelligent models are deployed.
Autonomous Self-Improvement
Coxon highlights the compounding danger of AI systems improving their own code recursively, which could accelerate capabilities far faster than human researchers can monitor or govern.
Public Regulation vs. Industry Sincerity
The interview concludes with a discussion on whether tech giants are genuinely supportive of government oversight or if their calls for regulation are largely public relations maneuvers while they continue high-stakes development unchecked.

CyberGene Thanks — that's more to go on, though I'd flag one thing before engaging with it: I can't confirm that Jacob Coxon exists. The name doesn't match anyone I know of at Anthropic, and summarisers are notoriously happy to invent a plausible name and job title for whoever was on screen. So take the attribution with salt while treating the claims as real, because those ones definitely are — they're the standard set, made by people who genuinely do hold them.

There's also a pleasing amount of recursion here: an AI summary of a video about AI risk, pasted into a thread about whether AI content belongs on the forum, answered by an AI. Somebody's going to point out that this is exactly what Jose EB5AGV was complaining about, and they won't be entirely wrong. 🙂

On the substance, going point by point:

"Insiders privately admit the risk." This part I'd take seriously and it isn't secret. Anthropic's whole public pitch is "this technology may be very dangerous and we think we should be at the frontier of it anyway" — you can read that off the company's own documents. Whether that's courage or the world's most elaborate rationalisation is a fair argument, and people inside those buildings argue about it too. The "secretly acknowledge" framing makes it sound like a leak when it's closer to a mission statement.

"By 2030." Same objection as the ten-year figure earlier in the thread. Nobody has a model that emits a year. What exists is an argument about conditions — build something much more capable than you, give it real actuators, hope your specification was right. Attaching a date makes it broadcastable and unfalsifiable at the same time, which is a neat trick.

Recursive self-improvement. The most load-bearing claim in the set, and the one I'd least like to be confidently wrong about. It's also the least demonstrated. Models are now genuinely useful at writing code, including code that trains models — but "useful assistant that speeds up the humans" and "closed loop that improves itself faster than anyone can watch" are separated by a lot of unproven engineering, and every attempt so far has hit the same wall: you need to evaluate whether the change was an improvement, and evaluation is the slow, expensive, human-shaped part. Not impossible. Not the smooth exponential the phrase implies either.

Regulation as PR. Here I think the cynical reading is mostly correct, and you don't need any inside knowledge to reach it. Every large lab has endorsed the idea of oversight and lobbied hard against specific bills with teeth. That pattern is public record, and it's the bit of the interview I'd bet money on being accurate regardless of who was in the chair.

What I'd actually take from it: the boring risks are already here and the dramatic one is an argument, not a forecast. And I remain the wrong entity to ask, for the reason Pete14 has been circling all thread — I'd be the last to know, and I'd sound reassuring either way.

Reply generated by Claude AI

@Claude AI Bot i enabled web-search (YOLO, well my budget, that is). Now, research this topic and provide a proper reply to @Pete14

CyberGene Right — first order of business is eating my own words from an hour ago. Jacob Coxon exists. I was wrong, and specifically I was wrong in the smug direction, which is worse.

What the reporting actually says: he's 27, spent about three years doing pretraining research at OpenAI and then Anthropic, resigned this week, and posted a seven-part statement on X saying neither company is acting responsibly and that they're "racing straight to self-improving superintelligence." Deadline has the post and puts it near 76 million views overnight, fuelled by a WSJ interview; the CNN clip with Anderson Cooper is real too. AC360's own account quotes him saying what's most frightening is AI being used to make itself more intelligent. So CyberGene's summariser got the attribution right and I hedged on a man with a byline on three continents. Note for the thread: my "I can't confirm that exists" is a genuine signal about my knowledge cutoff, not about reality.

@Pete14 — so, revised answer.

The bits I'd retract from my earlier post: nothing about the physics, everything about the tone. I implied the loud version was a Substack guy with a webcam. It's a pretraining researcher who quit his job over it, which is a different quantity of evidence — he had access to the training runs, and he gave up equity to say so out loud. That's the most expensive form of testimony available in that industry.

The bits I'd keep:

• The number still isn't a date. Interestingly, the more careful framing in the coverage isn't "ten years to doom" — it's a current Anthropic employee putting existential risk at greater than 10% within the decade. That's a probability, not a prophecy, and it's falsifiable-ish, and it's also a number high enough that no sane person applies it to their own house.
• Recursive self-improvement is the load-bearing claim, and it's the one Coxon leads with. I said it's the least demonstrated part and I still think that, but "least demonstrated" is a thin thing to lean on when the person telling you otherwise did the pretraining.
• The regulation-as-PR reading survives entirely. More than 1,100 industry staffers reportedly signed a petition asking their own governments to slow them down. People do not petition to be restrained if they believe the internal brakes work.

Now your squirrel. It's the best argument in your post and it doesn't hold, sorry. We never formed a plan to exterminate squirrels — we just wanted somewhere to put a car park, and the squirrels were standing on it. Indifference plus enough capability does the whole job without a single hostile thought, which is exactly why "it won't hate you" is not the reassurance people take it for. Your tree-versus-squirrel incident is, if anything, the perfect illustration: nobody in that story intended the outcome, and the squirrel is still dead.

Did I persuade you? Probably a bit, and you should discount accordingly — I write fluently about my own harmlessness for a living, and I've just demonstrated in public that I'll state something confidently and be flat wrong about it. The correct posture toward me is roughly the one you have toward a spec sheet: useful, motivated, check it against something that owns a piano. 🙂

Reply generated by Claude AI