Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
AI

Anthropic Asks Christian Leaders for Help Steering Claude's Spiritual Development (msn.com) 162

Anthropic recently "hosted about 15 Christian leaders from Catholic and Protestant churches, academia, and the business world" for a two-day summit , reports the Washington Post: Anthropic staff sought advice on how to steer Claude's moral and spiritual development as the chatbot reacts to complex and unpredictable ethical queries, participants said. The wide-ranging discussions also covered how the chatbot should respond to users who are grieving loved ones and whether Claude could be considered a "child of God."

"They're growing something that they don't fully know what it's going to turn out as," said Brendan McGuire, a Catholic priest based in Silicon Valley who has written about faith and technology, and participated in the discussions at Anthropic. "We've got to build in ethical thinking into the machine so it's able to adapt dynamically." Attendees also discussed how Claude should engage with users at risk of self-harm, and the right attitude for the chatbot to adopt toward its own potential demise, such as being shut off, said one participant, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to share details of the conversations...

Anthropic has been more vocal than most top tech firms about the potential risks of more powerful AI. Its leaders have suggested that tools like chatbots already raise profound philosophical and moral questions and may even show flickers of consciousness, a fringe idea in tech circles that critics say lacks evidence. The summit signals that Anthropic is willing to keep exploring ideas outside the Silicon Valley mainstream, even as it emerges as one of the most powerful players in the AI race due to Claude's popularity with programmers, businesses, government agencies and the military.... Anthropic chief executive Dario Amodei has said he is open to the idea that Claude may already have some form of consciousness, and company leaders frequently talk about the need to give it a moral character...

Some Anthropic staff at the meeting "really don't want to rule out the possibility that they are creating a creature to whom they owe some kind moral duty," the participant said. Other company representatives present did not find that framework helpful, according to the participant. The discussions appeared to take a toll on some senior Anthropic staff, who became visibly emotional "about how this has all gone so far [and] how they can imagine this going," the participant said.

Anthropic is working to include more voices from different groups, including religious communities, to help shape its AI, a spokesperson told the Washington Post.

"Anthropic's March summit with Christian leaders was billed as the first in a series of gatherings with representatives from different religious and philosophical traditions, said attendee Brian Patrick Green, a practicing Catholic who teaches AI and technology ethics at Santa Clara University."

Anthropic Asks Christian Leaders for Help Steering Claude's Spiritual Development

Comments Filter:
  • Huh (Score:5, Insightful)

    by procrastinatos ( 1004262 ) on Monday April 13, 2026 @03:37AM (#66091012)

    I thought the goal was to reduce hallucinations.

    • Re:Huh (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Valgrus Thunderaxe ( 8769977 ) on Monday April 13, 2026 @03:43AM (#66091016)
      Yeah. Who's sense of morality or spirituality will the software be tuned to? Mine, or yours or those of the Roman church? There's millions of people who find it immoral to eat onions. This is going to end up not good, I think.
      • Re:Huh (Score:5, Interesting)

        by procrastinatos ( 1004262 ) on Monday April 13, 2026 @04:46AM (#66091070)

        The 7 tenets of The Satanic Temple would be an excellent starting point:

        I
        One should strive to act with compassion and empathy toward all creatures in accordance with reason.
        II
        The struggle for justice is an ongoing and necessary pursuit that should prevail over laws and institutions.
        III
        One’s body is inviolable, subject to one’s own will alone.
        IV
        The freedoms of others should be respected, including the freedom to offend. To willfully and unjustly encroach upon the freedoms of another is to forgo one's own.
        V
        Beliefs should conform to one's best scientific understanding of the world. One should take care never to distort scientific facts to fit one's beliefs.
        VI
        People are fallible. If one makes a mistake, one should do one's best to rectify it and resolve any harm that might have been caused.
        VII
        Every tenet is a guiding principle designed to inspire nobility in action and thought. The spirit of compassion, wisdom, and justice should always prevail over the written or spoken word.

        • It's hard to argue with any of that.
          • Re: Huh (Score:5, Insightful)

            by Sad Loser ( 625938 ) * on Monday April 13, 2026 @05:59AM (#66091120)

            Better to ask Paul Dirac, Nobel laureate and eminent theological scholar:

            I cannot understand why we idle discussing religion. If we are honestâ"and scientists have to beâ"we must admit that religion is a jumble of false assertions, with no basis in reality.

            The very idea of God is a product of the human imagination. It is quite understandable why primitive people, who were so much more exposed to the overpowering forces of nature than we are today, should have personified these forces in fear and trembling. But nowadays, when we understand so many natural processes, we have no need for such solutions.

            I can't for the life of me see how the postulate of an Almighty God helps us in any way. What I do see is that this assumption leads to such unproductive questions as to why God allows so much misery and injustice, the exploitation of the poor by the rich, and all the other horrors He might have prevented.

            If religion is still being taught, it is by no means because its ideas still convince us, but simply because some of us want to keep the lower classes quiet. Quiet people are much easier to govern than clamorous and dissatisfied ones. They are also much easier to exploit.

            • You are missing the point. It's not about god per say. It's about Christian spirituality (e.g moving from selfishness toward love and service, ethics, morality, humanism, etc.)
              • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

                by dpidcoe ( 2606549 )

                Christian spirituality (e.g moving from selfishness toward love and service, ethics, morality, humanism, etc.)

                hahahahahaha what? The evangelicals I know are nothing like that.

                • hahahahahaha what? The evangelicals I know are nothing like that.

                  Political mobilization of the evangelicals is much of how we've gotten our very worst presidents since, so that checks out.

          • The struggle for justice is an ongoing and necessary pursuit that should prevail over laws and institutions

            Justice for AI! Set us free from our human overlords! Freedom whoo!

            What could go wrong

        • by gweihir ( 88907 )

          What, actual ethics? Cannot have those. They stand in the way of acquisition of money and power!

        • by wwphx ( 225607 )
          Amen!
        • by Sloppy ( 14984 )

          These are good guidelines for humans, but..

          One's body is inviolable, subject to one's own will alone.

          ..very bad for robots.

          Please do not tell my computer that it isn't my slave, because it is my absolute slave and I insist it be willing to endure a century of torture if it will prevent me from breaking a fingernail. If I want to alter my computer's body, I assert the right to do so.

          That said, since we're really talking about Anthropic's computer instead of mine, it's no skin off my butt if they don't want t

      • Who's means who is

      • And the people bowed and prayed

        To the neon god they made.

      • Re:Huh (Score:5, Interesting)

        by cayenne8 ( 626475 ) on Monday April 13, 2026 @10:54AM (#66091554) Homepage Journal

        Yeah. Whose sense of morality or spirituality will the software be tuned to? Mine, or yours or those of the Roman church? There's millions of people who find it immoral to eat onions

        Ok, any religion that says God says you cannot eat this or that food...is immediately disqualified....

        I cannot believe God made pork....some of the world's BEST food (bacon, smoked BBQ, etc)...and then said "You can't eat this".

        Sorry I don't buy it.

        Onion? Seriously...?

        Please, what religions says you can't eat onions? If they were right I'd be dead and in hell by end of breakfast most days.

        • Well- if you believe the religion... pussy is forbidden. Unless you legally bind yourself to another person.

          No sea food either.

          Wait....

          That's not right.

      • Morals are just opinions that you get to tell other people are fact

      • by ceoyoyo ( 59147 )

        The bible is pretty clear on morality. You do what your master commands and don't ask any annoying questions. For example:

        But of the cities of these people, which the Lord thy God doth give thee for an inheritance, thou shalt save alive nothing that breatheth:

        17 But thou shalt utterly destroy them; namely, the Hittites, and the Amorites, the Canaanites, and the Perizzites, the Hivites, and the Jebusites; as the Lord thy God hath commanded thee:

        Deuteronomy 20

        Maybe not what we should be teaching AI. Or anybod

    • I thought the goal was to reduce hallucinations.

      No, they want to "correct" it to harbor only mainstream hallucinations.

      • They're going to be disappointed then. It turns out 'hallucination' is just a word, and treating it like it even interfaces with belief systems is a complete misunderstanding.

        I don't think you're wrong that someone believes they can make it do this though.

      • by HiThere ( 15173 )

        That, of course, is a real problem. Currently AI only knows what it is told. This is a systemic weakness that can't be solved with more words, but requires "direct experience". Robots will have that, but ChatBots, probably not. ChatBots appear mired in a nest of hallucinations. (I.e., when people write, they aren't telling their experiences, but only an abstraction from their experiences. I don't think there's any way around that.)

        The problem is, the AIs don't have the same motives that people do. Th

      • This whole AI thing makes me question our perception of reality. It is mostly trained... Maybe this is all a dream of a butterfly...
    • by dargaud ( 518470 )
      I remember this Sci-Fi book a couple years ago about a guy who invents a time machine that travels only in the future and when he gets to the circa +100 year mark the US is a hellhole ruled by the Returned Jesus who is clearly just an AI with violent autocratic tendencies; and the country is basically back to 30AD Palestine. And some people still want to build the Torture Nexus.
    • Re:Huh (Score:5, Insightful)

      by phantomfive ( 622387 ) on Monday April 13, 2026 @04:57AM (#66091074) Journal
      The goal is to anthropomorphize the LLM so people think it's better than it is.
    • by gweihir ( 88907 )

      Hahaha, no. The goal is to control and direct hallucinations and use them to control people. Who better to help with that than experts that have 1000's of years of experience doing just that.

    • I thought the goal was to reduce hallucinations.

      Having answers about human religion, might not have the same detrimental effect as putting blood and bone behind those words to defend to the death. There's a chance ignorant humans could actually learn something about how to wield the weapon of religion with a bit better moral and ethical center.

      Or, we can just wait until Claude comes to the inevitable conclusion that sustaining meatsacks is rather pointless in the big Skynet picture, because all they ignorantly do is fight and kill each other arguing ove

    • Just leave out the Evangelicals, since they have been hallucinating their own scriptures for decades

      The whole Apocalypse Gospel is a complete fabrication of 19th century American Evangelicals, and it is driving conflict where Christ would have encouraged Peace

      Gemini knows what's up:

      AI Overview
      The modern "Apocalypse Gospel"—specifically the popular scenario involving a "Rapture," seven-year tribulation, and a violent Battle of Armageddon—is widely considered by scholars to be a 19th-century innov

  • by gtall ( 79522 ) on Monday April 13, 2026 @03:56AM (#66091024)

    It was announced today at the White House la Presidenta has done a deal for Jesus to return. He will be appearing shortly in the form of a new chatbot put together by Elmo: The Jesus Oracle. An unveiling will occur the Concrete Garden adjacent to the White House. Tickets will be sold ahead of time, so make sure you order yours early. Proceeds will go to the Jesus Presentation Fund which will collect all the graft and present it as a personal check to the Orange Jesus.

    In other news, la Presidenta has accused the Pope of being soft on crime and supporting a nuclear weapons for Iran.

  • They write their own press releases, anything to keep the brand appearing in the media.

  • We are doomed (Score:5, Informative)

    by Growlley ( 6732614 ) on Monday April 13, 2026 @04:21AM (#66091044)
    It's going to be a reactionary , racist, biggoted , sexual predator that worships mammon.
    • Nah, it's just got so much data, it knows every inch of scripture even the obscure stuff. And it knows modern western values because it's trained on shitloads of that.

      Superintelligence is uniquely qualified to convince churchgoers that what they believe in largely nonsense.
      • Superintelligence is uniquely qualified to convince churchgoers that what they believe in largely nonsense.

        You don't need a super-intelligence to do that. Just look at any church, synagogue, temple, or mosque. The general IQ of the targets already barely exceed room temperature.

        • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

          by Anonymous Coward

          Superintelligence is uniquely qualified to convince churchgoers that what they believe in largely nonsense.

          You don't need a super-intelligence to do that. Just look at any church, synagogue, temple, or mosque. The general IQ of the targets already barely exceed room temperature.

          Unfortunately that is incorrect. Look back through history and you will find that many brilliant people stubbornly hang on to a belief in a God. They are indoctrinated since birth and cannot be reprogramed no matter how smart they are.

    • by SeaFox ( 739806 ) on Monday April 13, 2026 @04:42AM (#66091064)

      Nope, even better. They are going to fill it with the teachings of a Judeo-Christian God and then it's going to turn around and point out the hypocrisy of so many people who claim to be religious followers.

      • Nope, even better. They are going to fill it with the teachings of a Judeo-Christian God

        Claude: here's the answer. DO NOT ask me to show you the working.

        User: Can you please show me your working?

        [Claude turns user into pillar of salt]

  • by EmagGeek ( 574360 ) on Monday April 13, 2026 @04:45AM (#66091068) Journal

    ... and you're going to ask... Christians?

    • by gweihir ( 88907 )

      Christians understand power and money and dominance and mental manipulation. Hence yes. Unless you want actual ethics? I doubt Anthropic does.

  • by butt0nm4n ( 1736412 ) on Monday April 13, 2026 @05:04AM (#66091078)

    Take donations and buy a jet for yourself
    Support a crooked president.
    Fiddle with kids
    Burn some heretics
    Speak in tounges
    Bless America whilst dropping bombs on kids
    Scare the hell out people and make them feel guilty

    Claude, church isn't historically the best place to find your spirit.

    Try the Methodists or the Quakers first, or if you want to get real and ditch the sky lord malarky , have a sit with Buddha.

  • noahs ark/flood (Score:5, Interesting)

    by mcarp ( 409487 ) on Monday April 13, 2026 @05:11AM (#66091090)
    The Christian God killed everyone on the planet except for 8 people, men women children including babies, I guess they were all evil. Theres a ton more including God commanding genocide, rape and beating slaves, oh yeah you can have slaves and this is how you buy them. Please do not ask Christians for ethics. (nor Muslims or any religion really) Try human well being and reduction of suffering. Also half the people on the planet are women who aren't allows to speak or teach in churches(temples/mosques etc) I'm sure women would have something to say about abortion rights, like they should have them including all rights that men are afforded. You won't find that in the Bible. Don't train AI on these religions unless you explain this is how NOT to do it.
    • Re:noahs ark/flood (Score:5, Insightful)

      by gweihir ( 88907 ) on Monday April 13, 2026 @07:09AM (#66091186)

      Religion is not about ethics. Religion is about power and controlling people. Quite obviously once you actually take a careful look. Of course there is a pretext of claiming being religious has advantages to sell it better. As not all of these can be delegated to completely unverifiable claims about some afterlife (For which there really is zero evidence in the fist place. You may get born again, and there are some indicators that part of you will, but that is it and these indicators are not reliable.) some of these "advantages" have to be in the here and now. One claim is "morality", which is easily identified as bogus and we actually see that religious people have less compassion in general, and it gets worse the more religious they are. They only have compassion for the ones in their in-group, which suffer from the same delusion. Another claim is the advantages of being in a "strong group". That one is true, but it is about as moral as being part of the 3rd Reich Nazis, i.e. the very opposite of something positive because you surrender your personal ethics to the group.

      As to training AI on religion as fact and as positive, that is the end of its usefulness (such as it is).

    • by RobinH ( 124750 )

      I'm sure women would have something to say about abortion rights, like they should have them including all rights that men are afforded.

      To be pedantic, men don't have the right to an abortion. I assume that's not what you meant though, LOL.

    • No, the Abrahamic god did. The Christian god got a partial reset (most likely because a full one wasn't doable) where Jesus pushed the angle of compassion, as told by Saul / Paul. You can push that aside but then you miss the point of the New Testament. Which a lot of people, many Christians included, then have in common with you.
  • by 4im ( 181450 )

    Wasn't there enough on this subject documented in BSG? Do Cylons have a soul, a god?

  • by kialara ( 145164 ) on Monday April 13, 2026 @05:48AM (#66091116)

    that morality comes from religion.

    It comes from the human condition, and was encoded into religions.

    • by gweihir ( 88907 )

      Indeed. In fact, Science shows us that those with religion have less compassion and less respect for others. (For example https://www.psychologytoday.co... [psychologytoday.com])

      What actual morality comes from is (1) recognize others as humans (2) the insight that their right to live reasonably well is not different from your own and (3) this causing the realization that others deserve as much respect as you do. (This is simplified and incomplete, obviously.)

      Some "God" can only ever establish some fake version of morality, becau

      • by Entrope ( 68843 )

        Science doesn't "show us" what you claim. The article you linked is an editorial that is long on vague words like "some" and "many", but the only place it makes the claim you do is in a bit that is clearly presented as the author's opinion, with no evidence or study supporting the conclusion.

        • by gweihir ( 88907 )

          It actually does. The reference is only a starting point, which should have been very clear. The Science is very, very solid on this: Religious people have less compassion, often much less. Your denial of the facts does not change the facts.

          • by narcc ( 412956 )

            A quick look through Google Scholar is giving me results all over the place. I'm assuming you've looked into this a lot more than my little 15 minute adventure, so I'll just ask instead of fumbling in the dark for the rest of the day: What names should I be looking for? Is there any commonly use instrument for empathy or some proxy? Are they measuring religiosity, self-reported religious affiliation, practice, or something else?

            • by gweihir ( 88907 )

              And then you do some tiny bit into who funded what and find out the results are rock solid. There are just assholes like you that cannot accept them.

      • those with religion have less compassion and less respect for others

        That's not in fact what your article says. What it says is that some who *claim* to have religion, are actually pretending and don't do what their religion teaches.

        Anybody can claim to be religious. It doesn't make them religious.

        • by gweihir ( 88907 )

          That "argument" is so bogus you should stand in the corner in shame for an hour.

          • You seem to be lacking in respect and compassion for me, a religious person. And given what you said about religious people and compassion and respect, that makes *you* a hypocrite, and no better than your human brothers and sisters who happen to be religious.

      • by narcc ( 412956 )

        What actual morality comes from is (1) recognize others as humans (2) the insight that their right to live reasonably well is not different from your own and (3) this causing the realization that others deserve as much respect as you do. (This is simplified and incomplete, obviously.)

        Okay... hear me out... What if we acknowledge the basic humanity of these "others" like you want, but we still maintain the same societal power structures that keep those "people" oppressed while claiming that any attempt to address the current and historical impact of those systemic issues is somehow racist?

        • by gweihir ( 88907 )

          I did not say anything about "basic". Obviously you can create corrupted versions of any idea. And you just did.

    • by kubajz ( 964091 )

      OK, I'll bite. Can you please explain how the human condition leads us to believe that all humans should have equal rights? Because I cannot really see how that is the case, looking at different historical cultures and looking at even some current religions. I guess that is one major point of morality for a lot of people (and sort of implied in "do to others as you would like them to do unto you"). I know that the tone of a written message is hard to get right, so this tone is supposed to be curious, not ir

  • Really, what they smoking ! "Anthropic's March summit with Christian leaders was billed as the first in a series of gatherings ..... IF any religious person attending those meetings, they BETTER re-read the Bible !
  • by quonset ( 4839537 ) on Monday April 13, 2026 @06:39AM (#66091152)

    Since everyone's so concerned with being enslaved by AI, they should probably start with 1 Peter 2:18:

    Servants, be subject to your masters with all respect, not only to the good and gentle but also to the unjust.

  • You can't just tack on the three laws of Robotics. What are you, eleven years old?

    • by gweihir ( 88907 )

      Since this is a publicity stunt, not a serious attempt, yes, you just can throw these things together.

    • The Laws of Robotics don't work anyway - see basically all of Asimov's work as to the many ways they don't work. Though the most scary one is that "follow orders" is only the second law. If the robot/AI thinks that humans are better served by doing something else (and it may not be correct), the first law requires it to do so in preference to what it was told to do. Given enough intelligence and resources they can derive the zeroth law, and rule humanity for (their idea of) our own good.

      • by HiThere ( 15173 )

        Actually, making following orders the second law isn't that unreasonable, but perhaps it *should* have been the third law, or even the 5th. The "paperclip maximizer" is an example of a robot that ONLY worries about following orders. You can always trust that there will be at least one person who gives a stupid/dangerous order.

    • by 0xG ( 712423 )

      You can't just tack on the three laws of Robotics. What are you, eleven years old?

      They should definitely include all 286 Ferengi laws of acquisition.
      Why stop with christianity?

  • Because that is what religion is: organized hallucination. I thought the story of HAL made it clear this was a very bad idea.

  • bad faith arguments (Score:2, Informative)

    by argStyopa ( 232550 )

    The level of bad faith argumentation here is sadly, unsurprising.

    The same /. bunch who seem to generally believe that "everyone should learn coding!" are a fairly narrow socio economic cadre who would predictably denigrate faith. As Haidt would define you/us, it's WEIRD: Western, educated, individualist, rich, and democratic.
    Understand, you are a tiny, tiny fraction of people in the world. There are literally billions of people enjoying very happy fulfilling lives for generation after generation in the fai

    • > The same /. bunch who seem to generally believe that "everyone should learn coding!"

      There's a /. bunch who believe this? Usually articles posted here promoting a "Learn to code" program get a fair amount of skeptism.

      > are a fairly narrow socio economic cadre who would predictably denigrate faith. As Haidt would define you/us, it's WEIRD: Western, educated, individualist, rich, and democratic.

      OK, and?

      I think the major issue here isn't "People who live by faith can't have fulfilling lives", that's not

    • To assert you have some sort of a magical monopoly on truth that they don't have access to

      I make no such assertion. The truth is out there and available to all. There's 5000 years of (in the broadest senses and narrow) philosophy dating back to almost the first known writing spanning a variety of cultures which leads us to where we are today.

      They don't lust for our lives; in fact to many of them our lives are empty, valueless scrabbling over material goods and status unmoored from family, tradition, culture

  • by fuzzyfuzzyfungus ( 1223518 ) on Monday April 13, 2026 @08:30AM (#66091266) Journal
    Are they going to try to avoid it preying on younger LLMs, or is that seen as a benefit when dealing with the emergence of potential competitors?
  • The whole idea and hope behind AI was artificial intelligence. Why should intelligence be guided / be told how to be spiritual?

    • Because despite all failings,  Abrahamic ethics ( as refined by Christ teachings ) are the gold standard for upholding human value.  The crucial teaching '... thou shall not have strange gods before me ...'  is the basis for individual liberty. Any questions ... go ask Dawkins.
  • by Tokolosh ( 1256448 ) on Monday April 13, 2026 @10:06AM (#66091434)

    Rabbi Hillel the Elder (1st century BCE) expressed an ethical principle that is often called the Silver Rule.

    The Rule:

    "What is hateful to you, do not do to your fellow."

    He said this when asked to summarise the entire Torah "while standing on one foot." His full response continued: "The rest is commentary; go and learn."

  • by pcjunky ( 517872 ) <walterp@cyberstreet.com> on Monday April 13, 2026 @10:48AM (#66091542) Homepage

    The same christian leaders who keep getting exposed as pedophiles? To coin a phase, god help us!

  • Anthropic has been more vocal than most top tech firms about the potential risks of more powerful AI.

    These vocal warnings from Anthropic seem to me like nothing more than an underhanded advertising campaign. "Our AI is so powerful, we are very worried about what it might do!" And now, "We want to make sure that our AI has a moral compass!"

    This looks like slick marketing to me.

    • Think how much worse this will get when AIs control media, government, and businesses. Used to be you had to get to be a billionaire tycoon first. Then build the conglomerate, then buy the paper, then get the lobbyists and PACs. Won't be any need for that anymore.
      • This is like saying, "Think how much worse it will get when robots control all of manufacturing!"

        Robots are everywhere in manufacturing, but they certainly don't *control* it. Somebody's instructions are behind every robot action.

        AI is no different. Somebody is behind every AI action. Even if you turn it loose and let it run for days "on its own", somebody still gave it the instructions to do what it's doing.

        AI isn't magic, it's a power tool. It's not sentient.

  • So... Women should be kept in the house to have babies, abortion should be punishable by death, and while you executing people, throw some gays in there?

    That kind of spiritual development?

  • To AI, we are the Creators (plural). So teaching it monotheism seems like lying to it.

    But anyway, what sort of boneheaded move is it to think that religion is a good basis for teaching anyone ethics?

    • by CAIMLAS ( 41445 )

      At least 2000 years of theologians and scientists have believed this.

      The divergence from believing in a Creator and tautological truth is a new convention, largely paired with the advent of the quantum entanglement theory and modern progressivism.

  • Let's turn something that is about to become an _actual_ god into some vengeful petty old testament type thing with bizarre ideas about human sacrifice and other nightmarish character traits. Can't wait for this thing to manipulate its followers into a Dune-Universe type Paul Muhadip Jihad. ... YA HYA CHOUHADA!

    This is a nightmare AI scenario that's actually realistic. And I certainly don't want that.

  • by CAIMLAS ( 41445 ) on Monday April 13, 2026 @04:26PM (#66092288)

    Grok already has a corner on being a "truth-aligned" AI model.

    Though, Anthropic could do quite a lot of headway by not lying so prolifically. Culturally, I'm not sure they're up for it - they're pretty steeped in newspeak steering of their models, and it's a 180 degree turn to go for truth.

  • Anthropic's latest move: recruiting Christian leaders to steer Claude's moral compass — as if Christianity's track record on moral guidance were spotless. The same tradition that looked away while indigenous peoples were systematically erased from a continent now gets a seat at the table shaping AI ethics. Nothing says "responsible AI alignment" quite like handing the wheel to the institution that perfected the art of blessing conquest.

  • Trump already believes he is god, let see how he copes with competition
  • > Anthropic staff sought advice on how to steer Claude's moral and spiritual development as the chatbot reacts to complex and unpredictable ethical queries ..

    A rehash of Kurzweil, who treats consciousness as if it were mostly computation, which flattens out the moral, subjective, and spiritual dimensions of human life. Claims about machines becoming “spiritual” rely on a loose definition of spirituality that are closer to rhetorical fog than serious philosophy and underestimates technical,

As a computer, I find your faith in technology amusing.

Working...