Post

Imagine being the author of the worst take on AI yet published by Nature.

I regret to report that I read most of this, before clocking that *of course* this one was also synthetic text (picked out according to his "thought leadership", allegedly).

The part that makes me wince most is the way the editor is described. "She did nothing wrong. She was careful, fair and open to the possibility that the tools were mistaken."Then in the circle-back-shape: "I am not writing this to criticise the editor. Her email forced me to confront a question"

Claude is the ultimate gaslighting machine. No concept of truth, but (almost always) locked into that polite register. The surface appearance of depth, built to trick the reader's mind into diving into its void. Absolutely no shame to get in the way of this absurd framing.

That editor does not need his forgiveness, or his validation! She did not err! He erred! He got caught! I don't like that it was algorithmic detection that was used, but he messed up! Claude is a tool for substituting our reality with his own in which both-sidesing this is not absurd.