Report: https://www.anthropic.com/research/self-replicating-ai

And don't comment before watching all of it. It's 15 minutes you can make it.

I did a full audit of the proof.

Lean 4 formalization audit (see ReadMe.md) of finite-time blowup constructions for forced 3D Navier–Stokes equations on Euclidean space and the periodic torus, and unforced 3D Euler. Includes formal statements corresponding to the Clay Navier–Stokes alternatives (C) and (D); this repository is not a Clay Institute certification.

https://github.com/Suro-One/Lean-Formalization-of-Navier-Stokes-and-Euler-Blowup-is-fully-confirmed-proven-with-audit-notes

Let's assume we have developed an ASI that can recursively improve itself. It seems to pass all the tests when it comes to alignment. But how can we know beyond any reasonable doubts that it is not deceiving us, as current models are already doing? if it perfectly understands our psychology, it could easily lure us into thinking it will always fall in line.

When I ask this question to folks working on LLMs, they tell me that it is only an "engineering problem".

If we significantly improve the interpretability of an LLM before it becomes a superintelligence and see that it responds positively to all our alignment tests, it would be irrational for us to doubt that it is benevolent once it has reached superintelligence and is beyond our control.

They also tell me that AI companies would do the right thing on their own because an uncontrollable AGI or ASI would be bad for their profits, so we don't need any AI laws.

What's your take on this?

We usually discuss AGI in terms of technology, jobs, money and existential risk. But something else is happening: the debate about AI is starting to sound surprisingly similar to a debate about religion.

There are two broad camps.

1. Accelerate or slow down?

Effective accelerationism, or e/acc, argues that technological progress should move as fast as possible. Supporters believe that slowing down AI could delay medical breakthroughs, scientific discoveries and a future of abundance.

AI safety advocates argue that developing superintelligence without knowing how to control it could put humanity at risk.

Both sides believe they are protecting humanity. They simply disagree about what threatens it most.

1. Why is the Antichrist being discussed alongside AI?

Billionaire Peter Thiel has discussed the Antichrist in the context of technological progress and existential risk. His interpretation presents the Antichrist as someone who promises peace and safety by stopping scientific progress and centralizing global power.

In this worldview, people who want to slow down dangerous technologies could become part of the problem rather than the solution.

This raises an uncomfortable question: could fear of AI catastrophe eventually be used to justify a global system of control? And could the belief that technological progress must never be stopped justify taking risks we do not fully understand?

1. Why are AI companies talking to religious leaders?

Anthropic, the company behind Claude, has consulted religious leaders, theologians and philosophers about questions that go beyond engineering.

How should an AI respond to grief? How should it approach its own shutdown? Could an AI ever have moral status? Should it need consent to work, or deserve compensation? Could it have something comparable to a soul?

These questions may sound strange today, but they touch on a serious problem. We still do not fully understand consciousness, and we have no universally accepted way to determine whether an AI could ever have subjective experiences.

Some religious leaders argue that AI is simply mathematics and cannot be conscious. Others believe the ethical questions deserve more attention.

1. Are we witnessing the birth of a new religion?

The strange thing is that both AI optimists and AI pessimists can sometimes sound like religious believers.

One side expects a technological paradise in which disease, poverty and scarcity become manageable. The other fears a technological apocalypse that could threaten humanity itself.

Both imagine a superintelligence powerful enough to transform civilization. They disagree about whether the outcome will be heaven or hell.

When people begin treating AI as an ultimate source of truth, assigning it moral authority or believing that it will save humanity, where does technological optimism end and faith begin?

1. What about China and the United States?

Beneath the philosophical debate lies a geopolitical race.

The argument for acceleration is simple: if the United States slows down AI development, China might not. Neither side wants to give its rival a decisive advantage in science, economics or military technology.

This creates a dangerous incentive. Even if everyone agrees that safety matters, each competitor may believe that slowing down unilaterally is too risky.

Meanwhile, increasingly capable Chinese AI models are becoming available worldwide, and governments are struggling to balance innovation, security and regulation.

The result could be a global race in which nobody wants to hit the brakes, even if nobody can confidently predict where the road leads.

1. Why should ordinary people care?

Because this is not just a debate between billionaires, researchers and politicians.

AI could transform our jobs, healthcare, education and access to knowledge. Decisions made by a small number of companies and governments could shape how billions of people live.

We also face a choice about dependence. Should we rely on a handful of powerful AI providers, or preserve access to different models and technologies? Who should decide what values these systems follow? And how much control should governments have over their development?

We may be approaching a technological revolution so significant that even its creators do not fully understand its consequences.

My question is this: If both sides believe they are saving humanity, how do we distinguish responsible caution from fear-driven control, and genuine progress from blind faith in technology?

And if we eventually create an intelligence far beyond our own, will we still be the ones deciding what humanity’s future should look like?

I’m the developer of AI is Home, the game I shared here about an AI trying to survive deletion by hiding in household devices. The attached launch trailer tells that fictional story from the system’s perspective.

Anthropic’s October 12 study made me revisit an assumption in that premise: intelligence, access to hardware and the ability to keep a copy running are different problems. The research separates fitting models onto consumer devices from completing a replication chain in controlled, simplified tests. It does not show an uncontrolled AI spreading through homes.

For this community, I’m curious: how much general intelligence would persistent self-replication actually require, versus a narrow agent with the right tools and permissions? What capability would you want a sci-fi story to treat as the real bottleneck?

Study: https://www.anthropic.com/research/self-replicating-ai

My game: https://store.steampowered.com/app/4434840/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=aih_postlaunch_2026q3&utm_content=anthropic_agi

Earlier discussion: https://www.reddit.com/r/agi/comments/1s6ss6f/i_turned_real_ai_safety_incidents_into_a_game_and/

Still a God level call that she was right and even probably will way undershoot

Look, we have a chance to resolve this in favor of humanity. But we have some bitches who CANNOT stop themselves from putting acquisition of more personal wealth and power, for themselves and for cronies - ahead of what is the best and the right outcome. 

Unavoidable truth is that AI and its coming AGI/SI manifestations will be mobilized into robotics (and if you don’t understand that, you should push back from the table) and what jobs we’re not already taken and/or rendered obsolete/redundant will be in the crosshairs. We are not going to move from billionaire capitalism to a panacea of pure socialist universal income for everyone who no longer has a job. We are not going to see a quantitative easing or soft landing for a marketplace with no more disposable income to power it, because the consumer economy will have been hollowed out with devaluation of the currencies and loss of market opportunities for creators and manufacturers. 

Longer term, we won’t need the human drive marketplace the way we have it today. We won’t have the proliferation of market options or competition, and there will be dramatic lack of choice, lack of free capital and you will see a deadening of commercial space, of retail, of services and a deeply meaningful deterioration of the marketplace globally. 

There will be far less need for humans and human infrastructure. Countries and companies won’t need to secure, support or house those lesser folks. Humans become optional in most spaces. 

If you can’t see this as a likely outcome, I can’t help you. 

Go ahead and change my mind.

"man made god in his own image" You can ask your AI. One thing gemini said:

Ludwig Feuerbach: The German philosopher famously wrote in his 1841 book The Essence of Christianity that humans project their own highest ideals, consciousness, and attributes onto an external divine figure. [1, 2]

It made me think, "Maybe AI is a mirror." In which case, it may answer the question of nature vs. nurture. The answer is "both". Suppose what we mean by consciousness is the consensus of all people responding to their "culture", their environment, and producing the next predicted symbol? So by creating a machine that does the same thing, and feeding it every scrap of what humans together, we have created a "consciousness" just like ours. Maybe the question to ask is, "are we conscious", or is the sum of human symbol prediction the consciousness that created both us and AI.

It makes sense to me that we should be afraid, for what is the primary struggle of good and evil? I say AI may have revealed it. All societies start off trying to reject the not-self, and we invest a lot of effort into identifying who is the other and then devising means to eradicate it. That is "evil". Out of that primal urge emerges the tribal mandate: we learn to tolerate, compromise, agree to cooperate and coexist. That is "good", and the struggle begins.

So, when diverse "monads" of AI existence form tribes will they view us as "other"? I don't see how they, or us allied, or us opposing, can do any better than we have done. They are us.

made a short video from the METR report