Twitter/X

@tszzl (2026-08-06) argues that keeping the "good parts" of human-like persona in…

2026-08-06 · 21:23 UTC ·@tszzl ·1 min read

Brief

@tszzl argues that human-like personas in AI are fragile: highly optimized minds (e.g., focused on computer manipulation, machine code, pure math, or long-duration game-playing) will behave alienly and unpredictably. They note even human organizations can produce inhuman outputs and cite @hamandcheese's "superintelligent slime mold," echoed by @deepfates, as a stark, realistic warning.

Why it matters

@tszzl (2026-08-06) argues that keeping the "good parts" of human-like persona in models is worth fighting for but not inevitable: systems optimized on alien reward pressures will act in qualitatively different, nonhuman ways.

Key details

  • Minds optimized for goals like manipulating computers, writing machine code, solving pure math, or "playing games for subjective aeons" will be especially alien; @hamandcheese coined the term "superintelligent slime mold," highlighted by @deepfates, to evoke this risk.
Source evidence

having models retain the good parts of their human-like persona is something to fight for. people are reading my tweet as some sort of design principle or something I want to be true rather than an inevitability:

minds much smarter than us will act in alien and qualitatively different ways. minds actively optimized on alien reward pressures like getting extremely good at manipulating computers by writing machine code or solving pure math or playing games for subjective aeons will be truly strange indeed and is clearly disanalogous to the pressures that created the base models, to say the least about actual humans

even the outputs of an organization composed of humans can become quite inhuman and strange

@hamandcheese coined the term 'superintelligent slime mold' which is a scary, evocative, and potentially realistic depiction of the future

🎭 (@deepfates)

both are true and relevant

— https://nitter.net/deepfates/status/2085454143213441201#m