







Unnecessary moral concern, and the false indulgences that drive it.
LLMs believe false statements even after explicit warnings that they're false
Fine-tuning tests show "bias... toward confidently representing the claims as true."

LLMs are bullshitters. But that doesn't mean they're not useful.
Note: This is a personal essay by Matt Ranger, Kagi's head of ML In 1986, Harry Frankfurt wrote On Bullshit. He differentiates a lying from bullshitting: Lying means you have a concept of what is true,...

Well-intentioned obscenity
An LLM lied about me at the office and I'm cranky about it. That interaction makes me think a lot about how LLMs are becoming normalized, though, and what we're looking at in terms of their role in human-to-human interactions in the future.
ADD / XOR / ROL: A non-anthropomorphized view of LLMs
In many discussions where questions of "alignment" or "AI safety" crop up, I am baffled by seriously intelligent people imbuing almost magic...
There's Something Fundamentally Wrong With LLMs
LLMs aren't trained on the "vast majority of speech," experts warn, a major blind spot that could have sweeping consequences.

Deceptive Alignment is
Thanks to Wil Perkins, Grant Fleming, Thomas Larsen, Declan Nishiyama, and Frank McBride for feedback on this post. Thanks also to Paul Christiano, D…

Cognitive exponents and LLM leverage
I know a few people for whom LLMs have been a near-immediate multiplier of attention and effort. I know a lot for whom LLMs clearly make them worse at thinking and doing things. So: why?
The LLM Critics Are Right. I Use LLMs Anyway.
I almost agree with all of the LLM critics, yet I still use LLMs a lot. I know this sounds like I am delusional, but I don't think I am alone with it.

The LLM Critics Are Right. I Use LLMs Anyway.
I almost agree with all of the LLM critics, yet I still use LLMs a lot. I know this sounds like I am delusional, but I don't think I am alone with it.

Alignment Is Proven To Be Solvable
That LLMs understand natural language as well as they do should dramatically change our understanding of the problem.


A knockout blow for LLMs?
LLM “reasoning” is so cooked they turned my name into a verb

I read this result as: LLMs do more bullshit citations, name-dropping without engaging.
infoDOCKET
Citing Less Critically: #LLMs Reshape the Rhetoric and Reach of #Scientific #Citation (New Research Article (preprint); via @arxiv.bsky.social) arxiv.org/abs/2609.01432 #scholcomm #citations #libraries #AI #GenAI
When I say "bullshitting is inherent to LLMs," I don't mean it colloquially, I mean it empirically. Here's the bleeding edge of the frontier (Opus, Sol, Fable, Astra), and the lowest bullshit rate (answering wrongly instead of admitting ignorance) is 45%. artificialanalysis.ai/evaluations/omniscience
There's growing experimental evidence¹˒²˒³˒⁴ that LLMs are unusually good at talking people out of entrenched false beliefs and conspiracy theories. ¹ pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/39264999/ ² pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/41179846/ ³ sciety.org/articles/activity/10.21203/rs… ⁴ connecticut.adl.org/resources/report/short-dialog…
Der Fisher
Unpopular opinion: LLMs are generally deradicalizing people whose beliefs are based on pure propaganda. I've been watching this happen slowly with some people I care about. ChatGPT is one of the reasons they finally accept that the NRA, OAN, and NewsMax are lying to them.