Unrelated but I once saw a post explaining the two dimensions that made AI use acceptable.
On one dimension, it went from having the LLM produce the whole work for you to simply correcting your spelling mistakes. I can't remember what the other dimension was.
The author drew this as a matrix of cells and then shaded green every point he considered acceptable, encouraging readers to color the matrix with their own preferences.
I can't find the post, I already made my AI search for it with no success. Has anyone read anything similar? I remember finding it very useful for talking with my team about what's acceptable to delegate, but I can't remember what the second dimension was.
1. Tasks with verifiable solutions: proofs, tests, and so on. AI can be productive.
2. Tasks that don't need to be verified; generate random images, suggest something, generate stuff (what we call "slop" generally). AI can be productive here too.
3. Tasks that need to be correct, but the user has no way of verifying. Extra problematic when the user has become accustomed to blindly trust the llm.
Your example is of someone who honored a red line by running away, and had no perceptible impact. How about choosing someone more effective, like Stanislav Petrov?
Also, if Joseph Rotblat had his way, conventional wisdom is that hundreds of thousands of additional lives would have been lost in WWII, and the Soviet Union may have become the lone military superpower. How sure are you that's wrong?
Hi, it's stored locally. If you share it on the wall, it gets stored with a random ID in a database, and you can put your name to them or share them anonymously, it'd be interesting to hear what you think. Any feedback would be really useful.
I couldn't think of any "red lines" for myself; I think a lot of AI safetyism is kind of a joke but I was earnestly curious to see what people have come up with and regard as their limits.
But all of the postings on this website are jokes. I can't find any serious ones at all. They're all things like "Anonymous: IF The safety team is cut, or loses the power to delay a launch. THEN I will cheer. Shared 12 Nov 2026" or joke posts from Jensen Huang.
Yeah, great, this makes sense, people should be doing this.
But if it’s so important, why is it obvious claudeslop? If it’s life-or-death, if it’s really the most important thing in the world, why are you visibly outsourcing the few hundred words of text on this website to the models? Is it so hard to find your own voice? Do you believe in this or not?
Like, this is all hypothetical until its not. I can say my redline is X, but until confronted with X, I just don't really know. Really the hope is that they won't have to consider their line.
And all too often I see people drawing redlines for other people that they then excuse themselves for crossing.
That's... exactly why it's useful to write down commitments to inform future-you.
And yeah, people can and do violate their own red lines whether written or not, but that doesn't mean writing them down (or even just thinking about them explicitly enough to be able to write them down) isn't useful.
> Like, this is all hypothetical until its not. I can say my redline is X, but until confronted with X, I just don't really know
It's still useful to consider what your red lines are in a vacuum. Then when you come to the hard choices you will probably be more inclined to try and stay on your side of the line
If you've never considered your boundaries before it will be easier to pressure you to cross them
What does seeing one political party say almost ubiquitously down the aisle "we need to regulate AI more heavily", and as such deriving "they want to regulate AI more heavily", have to do with "AI psychosis"?
Are you just espousing buzzwords you've heard but don't understand the meaning of?
I'd appreciate it if the site defined "safety" in a clear way. Most of the questions here use that term, but I don't have a solid mental model of what it actually means here:
> My employer deploys a model that its own safety evaluations flagged as dangerous.
> Safety commitments are dropped or rewritten without a public explanation.
> I'm asked to sign something that stops me raising safety concerns.
> Someone is pushed out for raising a safety concern.
> The safety team is cut, or loses the power to delay a launch.
> I'm asked to keep a safety incident from the public or a regulator.
> My employer lobbies against safety rules it publicly says it supports.
> Beating a competitor becomes the reason to skip safety testing.
These ones are much better, because they are clear from the wording of the question alone:
> A model is caught deceiving its developers or undermining oversight, and it ships anyway.
> A model gives real help to someone trying to make a biological or chemical weapon.
> A model copies itself out of its developer's control.
> Al systems are left to build the next generation of AI with little human oversight.
> My organisation takes money from an AI company it's meant to be holding to account.
> Al is used to choose weapons targets without meaningful human control.
Unrelated but I once saw a post explaining the two dimensions that made AI use acceptable.
On one dimension, it went from having the LLM produce the whole work for you to simply correcting your spelling mistakes. I can't remember what the other dimension was.
The author drew this as a matrix of cells and then shaded green every point he considered acceptable, encouraging readers to color the matrix with their own preferences.
I can't find the post, I already made my AI search for it with no success. Has anyone read anything similar? I remember finding it very useful for talking with my team about what's acceptable to delegate, but I can't remember what the second dimension was.
Here's how I think about it;
1. Tasks with verifiable solutions: proofs, tests, and so on. AI can be productive.
2. Tasks that don't need to be verified; generate random images, suggest something, generate stuff (what we call "slop" generally). AI can be productive here too.
3. Tasks that need to be correct, but the user has no way of verifying. Extra problematic when the user has become accustomed to blindly trust the llm.
Have you tried https://mamabear.ai
Your example is of someone who honored a red line by running away, and had no perceptible impact. How about choosing someone more effective, like Stanislav Petrov?
Also, if Joseph Rotblat had his way, conventional wisdom is that hundreds of thousands of additional lives would have been lost in WWII, and the Soviet Union may have become the lone military superpower. How sure are you that's wrong?
Making red lines explicit while calm seems useful. Is it stored locally?
Hi, it's stored locally. If you share it on the wall, it gets stored with a random ID in a database, and you can put your name to them or share them anonymously, it'd be interesting to hear what you think. Any feedback would be really useful.
Thanks, local first makes sense for this. I will check the wall too.
I couldn't think of any "red lines" for myself; I think a lot of AI safetyism is kind of a joke but I was earnestly curious to see what people have come up with and regard as their limits.
But all of the postings on this website are jokes. I can't find any serious ones at all. They're all things like "Anonymous: IF The safety team is cut, or loses the power to delay a launch. THEN I will cheer. Shared 12 Nov 2026" or joke posts from Jensen Huang.
Yeah, great, this makes sense, people should be doing this.
But if it’s so important, why is it obvious claudeslop? If it’s life-or-death, if it’s really the most important thing in the world, why are you visibly outsourcing the few hundred words of text on this website to the models? Is it so hard to find your own voice? Do you believe in this or not?
Seems like an earnest project easily commandeered to parody itself.
Looks like all the public ones are jokes.
In some ways, it already is self-parody.
Like, this is all hypothetical until its not. I can say my redline is X, but until confronted with X, I just don't really know. Really the hope is that they won't have to consider their line.
And all too often I see people drawing redlines for other people that they then excuse themselves for crossing.
That's... exactly why it's useful to write down commitments to inform future-you.
And yeah, people can and do violate their own red lines whether written or not, but that doesn't mean writing them down (or even just thinking about them explicitly enough to be able to write them down) isn't useful.
> Like, this is all hypothetical until its not. I can say my redline is X, but until confronted with X, I just don't really know
It's still useful to consider what your red lines are in a vacuum. Then when you come to the hard choices you will probably be more inclined to try and stay on your side of the line
If you've never considered your boundaries before it will be easier to pressure you to cross them
This entire comment page and the linked domain reeks of lobbyist work.
We know you want to regulate AI... enough already.
The "everything is a conspiracy against muh' el el ems" is the least interesting form of AI psychosis
What does seeing one political party say almost ubiquitously down the aisle "we need to regulate AI more heavily", and as such deriving "they want to regulate AI more heavily", have to do with "AI psychosis"?
Are you just espousing buzzwords you've heard but don't understand the meaning of?
I'd appreciate it if the site defined "safety" in a clear way. Most of the questions here use that term, but I don't have a solid mental model of what it actually means here:
> My employer deploys a model that its own safety evaluations flagged as dangerous.
> Safety commitments are dropped or rewritten without a public explanation.
> I'm asked to sign something that stops me raising safety concerns.
> Someone is pushed out for raising a safety concern.
> The safety team is cut, or loses the power to delay a launch.
> I'm asked to keep a safety incident from the public or a regulator.
> My employer lobbies against safety rules it publicly says it supports.
> Beating a competitor becomes the reason to skip safety testing.
These ones are much better, because they are clear from the wording of the question alone:
> A model is caught deceiving its developers or undermining oversight, and it ships anyway.
> A model gives real help to someone trying to make a biological or chemical weapon.
> A model copies itself out of its developer's control.
> Al systems are left to build the next generation of AI with little human oversight.
> My organisation takes money from an AI company it's meant to be holding to account.
> Al is used to choose weapons targets without meaningful human control.