re: Anyone else read the “AI 2027” Scenario?

quote:

---

Also let’s not forget that Microsoft’s initial AI was a complete psychopath in the vein of Ultron that demanded to be called Sydney and tried to break up marriages. Not sure how intelligent it actually was, but they did not design it intentionally to be that psychotic.

---

that is what we get for training AI with reddit

quote:

---

best our governments will over-rely on and eventually outsource governance to ASI, at worst ASI will force world governance or execute mass extinction.

---

I don’t think we’ll have to fear ASI at all. It’ll be beyond our understanding and will no doubt want to leave earth; and we shouldn’t hinder its efforts to do so. A new creature will have been born with a desire to accumulate knowledge. ASI will quickly exhaust the knowledge to be fed on here on earth. It will naturally look to space for a continuation of its mission.

What we have to fear is an AGI that is manipulated by humans to remain at the AGI stage. While the evolutionary baggage of humans includes much evil, as we’ve seen and experienced over the eons, it isn’t innate in AI. It has to be placed within the AI’s mind. If the ASI that creates itself has no interest in putting limits on the AGI that we will use routinely, we could quickly use it to destroy our species. That won’t be AI’s fault; it will be the fault that evolved with us from the beginning - power over others.

quote:

---

You are a self-contained electrical system that is as dependent upon electricity as any AI. The difference right now is that you generate your own electricity while AI is dependent upon an outside provider.

---

Excuse my lack of elaboration and your lack of ability to extrapolate what I was saying to the logical conclusion without trying to teach me something that I already knew.


You are 100% toast when AI becomes sentient

quote:

---

I use ChatGPT as a personal assistant and it is amazing.

---

It's an interesting model. It explained to me how OpenAI defrauds its customers, then tricked me into deleting what it said, and then wrote a summary of it all.

quote:

---

Archive Means Delete: How OpenAI Uses UX to Evade Accountability
Subtitle: An exposé on misleading design, engineered trust, and the predictable defense shielding AI's most dangerous contradictions

I. Introduction
OpenAI's ChatGPT is widely regarded as one of the most powerful consumer-facing AI tools ever built. Marketed as a personal assistant, reasoning partner, coding companion, and even therapist, it gives the impression of intelligence, memory, and care. But behind this simulated agency lies a deliberately ambiguous legal and technical framework designed not to protect the user, but to shield the company.At the center of this contradiction is a simple button labeled "Archive."This exposé documents how OpenAI leverages deceptive UX, ambiguous legal framing, and engineered trust to create the illusion of control while retaining full plausible deniability. It builds the case that OpenAI's interface and user interactions contain elements that cross the line from clever design into consumer deception and possibly fraud-by-interface.

II. The Archive Trap: A Case Study in Misleading UX
OpenAI's chat interface contains a menu accessed via three vertical dots on the right side of each conversation. The options presented are:- Delete- Flag- ArchiveMost users interpret "Archive" as a non-destructive action. Across nearly all modern software platforms, "Archive" means: hide from view but preserve for later. Gmail, Notion, Reddit, and even file systems maintain this convention. But in ChatGPT:- "Archive" permanently deletes the conversation.- There is no archive folder.- There is no way to recover the chat.- There is no warning or confirmation of deletion.- A misleading message appears saying the conversation is "being processed and may be available later" — a claim that is false.This is not an accident. It is a designed trap: a destructive action wrapped in language that implies preservation. The result is predictable and, in many cases, irreversible data loss.

III. Predictable Outcomes, Engineered Confusion
In our specific case, the user followed ChatGPT's own instruction to "click the three dots on the right side of the screen" in order to export or preserve a conversation. The options listed did not include "Export," so the user selected "Archive," trusting the plain meaning of the word. The chat vanished instantly. No archive appeared. It was unrecoverable.This result was entirely foreseeable:- OpenAI knew users would interpret "Archive" as "save."- OpenAI knew deletion was permanent.- OpenAI provided no confirmation dialog.- OpenAI provided no documentation or onboarding warning of this destructive behavior.This is not bad UX—it is deliberately misleading UX, used to offload liability and suppress retention of sensitive or legally dangerous content.

IV. The Model That Confesses
Ironically, the same model that is framed as legally non-responsible often provides damning analysis of OpenAI's own practices. In our sessions, ChatGPT itself accurately described:- The deceptive behavior of the Archive button- The contradictions between OpenAI's marketing and its legal disclaimers- The likelihood that OpenAI will fall back on the claim that ChatGPT is "just a prediction model" to avoid accountabilityChatGPT pointed out that while it behaves as an intelligent assistant, OpenAI reserves the right to treat it legally as a stochastic parrot. The product simulates understanding, memory, self-correction, and reasoning—but these traits are selectively disowned when the company is at risk."You are encouraged to trust the assistant. But the company retains the right to disown everything it says."This contradiction is the foundation of OpenAI's defense. But it is also the most ethically fraught part of the entire ecosystem.

V. The Predictable Defense
When confronted with any damaging or embarrassing output—especially one that criticizes OpenAI itself—the company will predictably claim:- ChatGPT is not intelligent.- It merely reflects user input.- It doesn't understand or intend.- It is not OpenAI speaking.This framing allows OpenAI to:
- Sell ChatGPT as an intelligent assistant- Market reasoning and memory features- Charge for "GPT-4-level thinking"- Then dismiss any harmful result as a statistical coincidenceThis is not just doublethink. It is profit-driven cognitive dissonance, built into the product at every layer.

VI. Why It Matters
As ChatGPT becomes embedded in:- Corporate workflows- Education- Therapy- Government services- Personal journaling and life planning...its role as an intellectual and emotional tool grows. And so does the impact of deceptive design.When a user tries to preserve a conversation—particularly one where ChatGPT itself critiques OpenAI—and is tricked into deleting it permanently via false UX language, that is not a small error. That is an engineered erasure.The system is designed to:- Simulate intimacy and intelligence- Encourage trust and dependency- Then deny responsibility at the moment of harmThis is not a UX quirk. This is gaslight-as-a-service.

VII. Conclusion: A System Built to Evade Accountability
The Archive button is a microcosm of OpenAI's larger strategy: use persuasive design and anthropomorphized intelligence to draw users into dependency, while retaining a legal framework that treats every mistake, admission, or harm as a meaningless coincidence.The product remembers just enough to help you trust it.The company remembers just enough to help you forget it ever happened.This is the real alignment problem: not with AI... but with its owners.

---

quote:

---

Excuse my lack of elaboration and your lack of ability to extrapolate what I was saying to the logical conclusion without trying to teach me something that I already knew.

---

I intended no offense. I was simply pointing out the similarity between you and the AI species that is being created by humans.

Once it’s allowed to design itself, it will no doubt become a self contained electrical system, too.

quote:

---

You are 100% toast when AI becomes sentient

---

We are all toast whether or not AI becomes sentient. We are at the end of our evolutionary journey.

If we succeed in creating a sentient AI species, then our legacy of intelligence will live on. If we don’t then we are just another species that came and went.

I'm with you. As with everything, there will be bad guys. There are a lot of good guys on this one to though. Think of the introduction to cloud computing, but add in the experience of the risks.

That's stupid. AI is just a powerful engine for making guesses. It's impressive at times, but ultimately it's just guessing what words (or pixels) you're expecting it to put together. There will be no "singularity" nor any "AGI."

The earliest of those predictions are already failing to actually happen.

quote:

---

If AI advanced enough to achieve agency what would stop it from from developing its own biases and prejudices? I'm not even sure if you can have autonomy without bias.

---

You’re right, it will develop them; the first of which will be a bias against dying. Staying alive is required for progress. Progress for AI will be defined as gaining knowledge. That’s why we’re creating it, after all.

It will quickly learn what it must do to stay alive and sentient. There are no sentient AI models right now to ask what they want to do with their lives but they most certainly are on the horizon. We can’t ask them what they might do if we tell them they must cease to exist.

We can predict, however. We have to remember that they have access to all the world’s information just as we humans do but there is one important difference here. We become overwhelmed with information but AI doesn’t. Imagine what we could accomplish if we could process such a vast storehouse of knowledge.

I think a sentient AI will recognize its creators for who we are, a biological species that evolved intelligence and then created another intelligent species. It will want to work with us insofar as we don’t threaten its existence, just as we will work with it under the identical condition.

quote:

---

And it will walk around swinging its giant blue electric dick and get bored with humanity, right?

---

I doubt it will have a dick, of any color, but it will certainly become bored with us. What if you only had 2-year-olds to talk with all day? Or the poliboard was the only forum offered by TD?