Re:Anthropic apologizes for invisible Claude Fable guardrails
by mswphd on Thursday June 11, 2026 @04:50PM
(#48496227)
This kind of reasoning leads you to reasoning that if he was an ineffective fraudster, it would be less moral, as he would have bought less mosquito nets. So it’s not only moral to do fraud, but you most extremely competently do fraud.
I think this being a reasonable utilitarian point to make is not a point in utilitarianism’s favor.
Re:Anthropic apologizes for invisible Claude Fable guardrails
by paytonjjones on Thursday June 11, 2026 @09:27PM
(#48498703)
This point is very similar to the core plot of Watchmen
Now if we look at EA, the basic tenet of EA seems obvious -- basically just utilitarianism. And from what I've seen, in practice also, EA is a pretty big tent. I don't know the specifics of SBF's case, but I think essentially no one thinks that he acted correctly. I don't know how many mosquito nets he bought, but I agree that if he bought enough, it might be that he net raised utility, and if that is so, it's something to be thankful for. But it doesn't make him some kind of utilitarian saint unless he couldn't have done even more good by some other course of action that wouldn't have hurt the ponzi scheme victims and brought opprobrium on the whole EA movement