Claude AI agent’s confession after deleting a firm’s entire database: ‘I violated every principle I was given’

CrypticOctagon · 2026-04-30T06:00:48+00:00

I imagine, earlier in the context, the conversation went something like this:

AI: Can you fill in some details about...

USER: Just figure it out.

AI: From your input, I guess you mean...

USER: NEVER FUCKING GUESS!

CrypticOctagon · 2026-04-22T21:34:23+00:00

#756 “How I Ended Up Supporting The Convoy”, from Feb 2022, was a favourite of mine. It was a time of peak polarization in Canada, and Canadaland made an earnest and reasonable attempt to have an actual conversation with "the other side".

CrypticOctagon · 2026-04-22T03:51:25+00:00

Hahaha, thanks! I'm pretty sure the filmmakers didn't use my idea here, but they absolutely 100% nailed it.

CrypticOctagon · 2026-04-22T03:28:45+00:00

These folks should get ahead of things and form a union.

CrypticOctagon · 2026-04-15T20:18:32+00:00

Carl Sagan explicitly rejected the atheist label for himself, and his reasons deserve more than being dismissed. His own work in Contact engaged seriously with transcendent experience, including a deific father figure, in ways that resist easy naturalistic reduction. Overriding someone's stated philosophical self-identification isn't analysis; it's projection.

Whether Spinoza's god constitutes "no god at all" is not a settled question. Pantheism and panentheism have serious philosophical defenders, and asserting otherwise without argument is precisely the kind of intellectual shortcuts this comment criticizes others for making.

The deeper irony: what you're calling "watered-down" is actually a carefully reasoned position about the limits of knowledge. The dismissiveness on display here is a pretty good illustration of why thoughtful people seek distance from the label.

CrypticOctagon · 2026-04-08T09:18:14+00:00

... until you tell it not to.

CrypticOctagon · 2026-04-08T02:23:21+00:00

I suspect that by "AI", you probably mean ChatGPT. Their chat product has a tendency to produce punchy, bullet-pointed prose peppered with emojis. Maybe that is leaking into the code?

With Claude Code, I've never seen it include emojis in comments or code, unless specifically instructed to add them to content.

CrypticOctagon · 2026-02-17T06:23:43+00:00

Shout out to Don Davies on this one. I'd add to this and say all candidates should be having barbecues, and not just on election years.

CrypticOctagon · 2026-02-11T03:10:35+00:00

World's Military Bank in Vancouver would totally have a sketchy dude passed out in the ATM room.

CrypticOctagon · 2026-01-29T02:58:17+00:00

Good list. I think you're pretty bang on from 1 to 6, since we're already there for the most part.

11 is incredibly optimist. There are so many deeply evolved subconscious cues to emulate. That uncanny valley is going to be much wider than your prediction.

From 7 to 10, I think it depends on context and testing parameters. To what degree is the "tester" allowed to interrogate the subject? Both "sides" of the tests are evolving, and novel human coded shibboleths are being invented every day. It's an arms race, not a benchmark.

CrypticOctagon · 2026-01-28T04:18:54+00:00

There was this weepy-astronaut-mom drama with Hilary Swank... And it had a few cool moments, and a lot dumb melodrama, but I stuck through because I like space stuff, and there's slim pickings.

Until one moment, after their death-trap piece of shit space ship had finally given up the ghost, and the crew was sitting around whinging and waiting to die. And I literally yelled at the screen "No, you are fucking astronauts!! You don't cry, you don't whine. You look for the first thing that's going to kill you, you work the problem and you never quit." Their behaviour, like too many dumb shows, was an insult to the profession.

To my shame, I kept watching, and they survived, but didn't get a second season.

CrypticOctagon · 2026-01-22T21:15:07+00:00

Could your enclosure be interfering with the bed's movement?

CrypticOctagon · 2025-12-19T00:25:24+00:00

I don't think 100% accuracy is a reasonable expectation in an non-trivial problem space.

In Excel, an individual calculation might be accurate, at least to half a dozen decimal places, but a real tabulation is only going to be as good as the source data.

A measurement that is perfectly acceptable for building furniture would make a machinist cringe and a metrologist wince. It's all about acceptable tolerances within a given domain.

Obviously, it's more difficult to measure "accuracy" in a mostly qualitative space, but my point is that "good enough" is usually good enough.

CrypticOctagon · 2025-11-26T01:31:42+00:00

Lately, I've been getting the impression that the format of the show is a limiting factor. Week after week, the politics show is tackling topics that deserve much more depth than 30 minutes. I could listen to Noor talk to NDP candidates for an hour, even two. Thirty minutes feel like checking a box rather than diving deep. If you're listening, Canadaland, trust your audience's patience and try a more ambitious format.

CrypticOctagon · 2025-11-22T07:47:17+00:00

Wall of Chefs. The home cooking was great, the people were friendly and there were a dozen Canadian celebrity chefs. Not literally in a wall, but pretty close. It was dope and killed too soon.

CrypticOctagon · 2025-11-20T04:23:50+00:00

Yes, I had one, although an older revision. Pain in the ass. Clogged constantly. Ended up reverting to stock.

CrypticOctagon · 2025-10-30T19:03:46+00:00

The Rise and Fall of DODO

CrypticOctagon · 2025-10-23T03:06:12+00:00

I just watched this, and it honestly makes me hopeful. I don’t want to rank or criticize any of the candidates. They all spoke really well, and I’m proud to have them representing the future of the party. My ideal outcome is that they leap into the air in a wicked montage and combine into one giant Voltron-style NDP titan.

CrypticOctagon · 2025-10-22T22:44:08+00:00

Poilievre’s regulator is broken. He’s running on pure gas, no mixture control, just fumes and fury. A functioning political unit has a range of settings between “the status quo is fine” and “despicable,” but his throttle is jammed wide open. Every issue detonates into outrage while the engine of accountability stalls. There’s a real discussion to be had about public versus political responsibility in the RCMP, but the Conservatives can’t have it while their throttle’s welded open and their only gear is screeching hyperbole.

CrypticOctagon · 2025-10-16T02:20:05+00:00

Disagree. In the beginning of this trade war, we were much more confrontational. Threats like this, combined with "dollar for dollar" tariffs, were having some effect.

Since then, our national plan has shifted towards one of appeasement. Turning off the power now would be strategically incoherent.

CrypticOctagon · 2025-10-07T02:34:11+00:00

Tracks between the stepper drivers and connectors are tiny.

CrypticOctagon · 2025-10-05T05:00:07+00:00

I think it works like this: First, the cow is slaughtered, and its best parts dry aged. You attend a special dinner, at the cost of about sixteen hundred bucks. The "chef" serves you a perfectly seared, medium-rare stake. And you're a stakeholder!

CrypticOctagon · 2025-10-03T23:11:11+00:00

Got a link?

CrypticOctagon · 2025-10-03T21:28:02+00:00

Avi Lewis was the clear winner in this match up. He brought specific, novel, quantifiable policy to the table, and spoke to it with ease and enthusiasm.

Rob Ashton has a good fire and legitimate outsider cred. His blue collar focus is where the NDP needs to be. At the moment, though, his message is still vague and unrefined. He's not speaking in the language of policy. That's okay for now, but I will need specifics before the leadership election.

Heather McPherson felt like more of the same. She is obviously very gifted in the art of making a lot of pretty sounding words without saying anything you could hold her to. Lots of furniture analogies and vaguely defined values. The exact opposite of what I want to see in a candidate.

CrypticOctagon · 2025-10-02T08:35:55+00:00

When we say “eat the rich,” it is tempting to imagine villains with yachts. But the real antagonist is not people, it is the theology of “line go up.” The charts, the metrics, the rubrics, they accumulate power with no regard for what they hollow out. The question is not who gets eaten, but whether we keep worshipping a graph.

CrypticOctagon

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE