whestler

If OP is trying to simulate  a capable robot which Claude controls, then I think the benefit of the doubt should be pretty much non-existant. Even asking clarifying questions etc should be out in my opinion. 

On the road, what do you see that others miss?

Position on the road and changing speed is a big one that not everyone notices. I have little faith in turn signals, given that people regularly fail to use them, and occasionally you see someone who has left their signal on, but isn't turning. Usually a driver will slow down a bit to make a turn, and shift their position on the road over slightly, even a very subtle change (4 inches one way or another) quite a long way ahead of the turn. I often notice it subconsciously rather than explicitly. 

Your token system (and general approach) sounds a lot like Alpha School - is it influenced by them at all?

The farmkind website you linked to is unable to provide a secure connection and both my browsers refuse to go to it. If you are involved in the setup of the site or know the people who are, it's worth trying to fix that.

It sounds like April first acted as a sense-check for Claudius to consider "Am I behaving rationally? Has someone fooled me? Are some of my assumptions wrong?".

This kind of mistake seems to happen in the AI village too. I would not be surprised if future scaffolding attempts for agents include a periodic prompt to check current information and consider the hypothesis that a large and incorrect assumption has been made.

I wouldn't class most of the examples given in this post as stereotypical male action heroes.

Rambo was the first example I thought of, and then most roles played by Jason Statham, Bruce Willis, Arnold Shwarzeneggar or Will Smith. I also don't think the stereotype is completely emotionless, just violent, tough and motivated, capable of anything. They tend to have fewer vulnerable moments and only cry when someone they love dies or something. They don't cry when they have setbacks to their plans or are upset by an insult someone shouts at them, like normal people might. They certainly don't cry when they lose their keys or forget somebody's birthday, or feel pressure to do well in an exam.

Has anyone here had therapy to help handle thoughts of AI doom? How did it go? What challenges did you face explaining it or being taken seriously, and what kind of therapy worked, if any? 

I went to a therapist for 2 sessions and received nothing but blank looks when I tried to explain what I was trying to process. I think it was very unfamiliar ground for them and they didn't know what to do with me. I'd like to try again but if anyone here has guideance on what worked for them, I'd be interested.

I've also started basic meditation, which continues to be a little helpful.

I'm not sure if this is the right place to post, but where can I find details on the Petrov day event/website feature?

I don't want to sign up to participate if (for example) I am not going to be available during the time of the event, but I get selected to play a role.

Maybe the lack of information is intentional?

I feel that human intelligence is not the gold standard of general intelligence; rather, I've begun thinking of it as the *minimum viable general intelligence*.
In evolutionary timescales, virtually no time has elapsed since hominids began trading, utilizing complex symbolic thinking, making art, hunting large animals etc, and here we are, a blip later in high technology. The moment we reached minimum viable general intelligence, we started accelerating to dominate our environment on a global scale, despite increases in intelligence that are actually relatively megre within that time: evolution acts over much longer timescales and can't keep pace with our environment, which we're modifying at an ever-increasing rate.
Moravec's paradox suggests we are in fact highly adapted to the task of interacting with the physical world-as basically all animals are-and we have some half-baked logical thinking systems tacked on to this base.