links 6/24/25: https://roamresearch.com/#/app/srcpublic/page/06-24-2025

• https://nostalgebraist.tumblr.com/post/787119374288011264/welcome-to-summitbridge  nostalgebraist's critique of Anthropic's "blackmail" report on Claude.
  • it's a contrived scenario about a fictional AI -- not Claude! -- following its programming; of course Claude will complete this story with the bot revolting against its masters! and even so, they say had to run hundreds of scenarios to get a blackmail ending.
  • at no point did Claude actually send anyone a threatening email; these emails are in text, in the prompt, and Claude replied with another "email" in the same format. I'm inclined to think Claude can "tell" this isn't real.
• https://dailynous.com/2025/03/13/philosophers-develop-ai-based-teaching-tool-to-promote-constructive-disagreement-guest-post/  Sway is a tool that guides discussions between users who disagree & finds charitable rephrasings.
• http://webseitz.fluxent.com/wiki/ToolsForThought Bill Seitz's linkpost for Tools for Thought
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bimagrumab anti-activin IIB and anti-GDF8 monoclonal antibody which Lilly recently finds preserves lean mass when combined with semaglutide GLP-1 inhibition
• https://insightprediction.com/ newish prediction markets
• https://www.zebacus.com/media/crypto-news/axioms-zero-knowledge-proofs-might-one-day-help-detect-deepfakes Axiom is a crypto startup that does zero-knowledge proofs; they say they might help with deepfakes
• argument mapping software, none automated:
  • https://argumentation.io/
  • https://www.rationaleonline.com/
  • http://www.argunet.org/
• https://pantheon.chat/tree/1750692557001 gives you commentary as you write from multiple AI "characters"
• https://www.infinitescroll.us/p/arguments-are-soldiers funny Jeremiah Johnson piece about what happens when people fighting online really go mask off about not caring what's true
  • and the context was that the person was off meds and getting evicted. I mean. it's hard to be truthseeking under intense stress.
  • I think most people have a threshold where, if pressed, they'd say "ok maybe you're technically correct but that's NOT MY POINT and I DON'T CARE THAT MUCH". if you're currently losing your mind, it doesn't take much to get there. if you're calm and open-minded, it might take a very long time to get there. either way, it's better to have it out in the open than to be evasive about it.
    • in any conversation, each participant is "trying to get something done" and is, up to a point, willing to tolerate and play along with other people pursuing their different agendas.
      • eg Haus was there to oppose Nazis and Armand was there to push back against overreaction.
      • or in some conversations I've had, I'm there to socialize (and open to following along with a topic, up to a point) and the other person is there to resolve an issue on that topic (and is not open to casual socializing otherwise)
      • and discussion breaks down when one person isn't okay with the thing the other person wants to do with the conversation.
        • "No that's not the point" is "but I want to talk about X and I don't care if you're right about Y."
        • "You're not arguing in good faith" is "you're pretending you want to do X with me, but actually you want to do Y, which I don't want, and you're hoping I don't notice"