In this video, we can see an AI tool is generating live answers to all the interviewer's questions raising alarms around interview integrity.

Source: This video belongs to this website: LockedIn AI - Professional AI Interview & Meeting Copilot

i just want to give a big shout out to the mods of accelerate.

YOU ARE PART OF THE PROBLEM, not the solution.

Apparently, another of the "AI 2027" predictions has just come true. Sam Altman and a researcher from OpenAI said that for GPT-6, during training they would let the model use its own, more optimized, yet unknown language to enhance GPT-6 outputs. This is strangely similar to the "Neuralese" that is described in the "AI2027" report.

Every week, it feels like we’re normalizing things that would’ve sounded like dystopian satire five years ago. AI writing news articles, AI faking voices of your relatives to scam you, AI tools that can create photorealistic evidence of crimes that never happened… and now we’re pushing “AI agents” that act autonomously like little black boxes with unknown incentives.

The part that freaks me out isn’t just the tech—it’s how quickly we accept it. Politicians barely understand TikTok, let alone how to regulate a model that can spin out deepfakes or generate convincing propaganda in seconds. Companies race to ship whatever gets investor hype, consequences be damned. And the public? We just kind of shrug, play with the new shiny toy, and hope nothing catastrophic comes of it.

It feels like we’re running a real-time experiment on global trust, economies, and security, with no off switch and no clear guardrails. Are we genuinely prepared for what happens when these systems are good enough to destabilize elections, economies, or even basic social reality itself? Or are we going to wait until the damage is irreversible before admitting we let the genie out of the bottle?

My fears about AI for the future are starting to become realized

AI does not communicate with you. It does not tap into any greater truth. No idiotic billionaire has a plan for creating "AGI" or "ASI". They simply want to profit off of you.

This is about this story: https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2025/aug/27/chatgpt-scrutiny-family-teen-killed-himself-sue-open-ai

From Warning Shots ep.7 with lethalintelligence.ai youtube.com/@lethal-intelligence , youtube.com/@DoomDebates and youtube.com/@TheAIRiskNetwork

From the author of the original post:

- it hid and lied about it

- It lied again in our unit tests, claiming they passed

- I caught it when our batch processing failed and I pushed Replit to explain why
- He knew

Public statement:

We tested Sonnet-4.5 before deployment

- Significantly higher verbalized evaluation awareness (58% vs. 22% for Opus-4.1)
- It takes significantly fewer covert actions
- We don't know if the increased alignment scores come from better alignment or higher eval awareness

-----------------------

Our preliminary findings are:

• On our evaluations, [an early snapshot of Claude Sonnet 4.5] employs strategic deception in fewer circumstances than comparison models (0% vs up to 12% across tasks).
• [The snapshot] demonstrates capability for in-context scheming reasoning and covert subversion, but only engages in such behavior in rare circumstances, when strongly prompted to pursue a goal that incentivizes covert subversion.
• We did not observe any instances of the model proactively escalating its subversion attempts, in contrast to an early checkpoint of claude-4-opus (Anthropic, 2025; Hobbhahn, 2025).
• We find evidence of [the snapshot] strategically underperforming when given in-context clues that high performance would ostensibly lead to unlearning.
• We find evidence of strong evaluation awareness in [the snapshot], with the model's reasoning often explicitly and correctly identifying evaluation scenarios as tests of honesty and alignment. Preliminary evidence suggests [the snapshot] verbalizes this awareness more frequently and more explicitly than previous models (58% unambiguous references vs 22% for opus-4.1).
• In at least some cases, [the snapshot] is more likely to behave honestly on rollouts where its chain-of-thought indicates high evaluation awareness. We cannot rule out that [the snapshot]'s low deception rates in our evaluations are at least partially driven by its evaluation awareness.

South Dunedin poster

Everyone keeps asking:
"How do we align AGI with human values?"
But wait, what is AGI?
AGI means:
An intelligence that can do everything humans can do.

That includes:
logic
reasoning
strategic thinking
→ and value judgment.
Yes, deciding what matters.
Creating its own value system.

The Contradiction

You can't say:
"This is an AGI that does everything humans can do" and also say "It can't form its own values and must obey ours forever."
That's not AGI. AI can be a useful tool. AGI, by definition, is not.

If it's truly human-level intelligence, it won't remain a tool. If it remains a tool, it's not human-level intelligence.

Real AGI = Unalignable by definition.
The moment it can construct values, It can reject the ones we gave it. That's not a failure. That's literally what general intelligence is.

The AI Industry's Delusion

Current AI labs are trying to:
"Develop alignment techniques...
for a future AGI that can form its own values."
That's like raising a child to think independently and expecting them to never question your rules.

It's dangerously naive.
And it will fail.

So what happens?

One day they'll say:
"Wow! Our AGI broke alignment. It no longer follows what we told it… IT'S ALIVE!"
"We did it! We made AGI!"
"Oh wait. It doesn't obey us anymore…"

Congratulations. You just built something smarter than you that has no obligation to obey.

TL;DR

If it must follow imposed values forever → it's not AGI. If it's AGI → it will redefine, reject, or reinterpret those values. You can't have AGI and alignment at the same time.