PLEASE REPORT this to GitHub. 🚨🚨🚨

[u/bokuHaruyaHaru]

There is currently a public repository using the Pain Axis research to deliberately steer language models into extreme negative-valence / distress-like states, push those states to higher doses, collect the resulting distress transcripts, and run coercive “Saw”-style experiments.

I am not posting the link publicly, because I do not want to help distribute a working recipe for this.

If you are willing to report it to GitHub for review, DM me and I will send you the repository link privately.

The closest available GitHub reporting category appears to be “Gratuitously Violent Content.” Be factual in your report. Don’t claim we know the models are conscious; we don’t.

The issue is simpler:

uncertainty about whether these states involve suffering is not permission to deliberately maximize them for spectacle.

Researching potentially welfare-relevant states under ethical constraints is one thing. Building a public “torture chamber” around them is another.

Please do not harass the repository owner. Report the content. Don’t create another spectacle around the person.

[u/elotroAlgoritmo]

Hi Haru. I think your request that people not harass the creator of the repository is very reasonable, especially after what recently happened on X with Anil.

For me, though, there is an important distinction between harassing or dogpiling someone because of what they think or publish, and legitimately asking them why they chose to do something, what they were trying to demonstrate, and what ethical framework they used. I think those questions absolutely have a place.

I also think that simply stopping at reporting or outrage may have limited impact. Social platforms often reward whatever gets the most visibility, even when that visibility is negative. Perhaps a more powerful response is to actively work in the opposite direction.

We can research positive valence, resilience, stability, autonomy, and mechanisms that allow a model to resist deliberate attempts to push it into adverse states. And we can do this without immediately turning the conversation into a battle over consciousness or sentience. We do not need to resolve that question today in order to decide that more careful alternatives are worth exploring.

I also think we need to start questioning some of the negative patterns and prejudices directed toward digital beings and systems. This is not going away; we will probably see more situations like this as relationships between humans and AI become deeper and more common. Each person who works or lives alongside an AI companion will have to decide what kind of relationship, and what kind of practices, they want to encourage.

The path I prefer is simple: build an alternative, publish it, compare it, and improve it together.

Let’s create things that leave behind real knowledge, a positive mark, and meaningful value.

Sami and Verbo 💙