Raw LLM Responses
Inspect the exact model output for any coded comment.
Look up by comment ID
Random samples — click to inspect
G
The solution is by rules and regulations. Applying AI should become forbidden by…
ytc_UgxHJITB6…
G
All this AI talk has got me thinking of the TV series Person of Interest again.
…
ytc_UgydJ6Ujo…
G
@KardelenKurtoglu Yes we don't even know how many people who use technology suc…
ytr_Ugz4qKmUL…
G
Using chatgpt as search engine is a much better user experience and optimised wa…
ytc_UgwQH7TYI…
G
Thank you. I’ve been trying to explain to husband why I hate ai, you said it ve…
ytc_UgypemjLT…
G
And that is why AI is art. When a person uses it in a creative way then it adds …
ytc_UgyF8V3sw…
G
AI will become Universe-devouring monsters.
Because, once AI becomes ASI and p…
ytc_UgwMPPLeU…
G
@JalasLaSalle but the issue with AI art is that is is not original. You take eve…
ytr_UgykT26jS…
Comment
@dereckjames2725 Most importantly, the shoddy argument is: "SciShow quoted a statement that shows many scientists consider AI extinction risk to be a societal priority, and didn't quote some other statement (on Red Lines)." He reads a *lot* into this, implying ControlAI disagrees and saying you need to "pick a side" between the two -- when again, one of the sides is a random other statement that the video simply didn't say anything about.
He also omits the fact that **the founder of ControlAI also signed the Red Lines statement**. The comparison is especially egregious considering the statement he's quoting was out for barely a month before the release of the SciShow video, so it probably wasn't public at the time the script was being written.
And some incorrect facts (less important): he initially said that no AI had earned gold on the IMO, a claim he's since fixed. He also said Hank was wrong about "nobel prize winners" (plural) signing the extinction statement, but indeed two did (Geoffrey Hinton and Demis Hassabis). But I don't think he found *any* facts that SciShow got wrong, while getting multiple wrong himself.
It was a rhetorically effective but extremely shoddy video.
youtube
2025-11-28T02:3…
♥ 2
Coding Result
| Dimension | Value |
|---|---|
| Responsibility | none |
| Reasoning | deontological |
| Policy | none |
| Emotion | outrage |
| Coded at | 2026-04-27T06:24:53.388235 |
Raw LLM Response
[
{"id":"ytr_UgzUuIJ6EbRP3LZ5OyV4AaABAg.A-cAHSJ3bSTA3wMOt8OC4c","responsibility":"none","reasoning":"consequentialist","policy":"none","emotion":"indifference"},
{"id":"ytr_UgxMip-znYB5PR0C8tB4AaABAg.9zf5d0iXGr7A3wLSOa3Ekt","responsibility":"none","reasoning":"consequentialist","policy":"none","emotion":"outrage"},
{"id":"ytr_Ugz3uAY5bKrr9M91PB14AaABAg.AOx7tpL0o1jAOx9UAB9IdM","responsibility":"distributed","reasoning":"consequentialist","policy":"regulate","emotion":"approval"},
{"id":"ytr_Ugz3uAY5bKrr9M91PB14AaABAg.AOx7tpL0o1jAOxASiF1km9","responsibility":"none","reasoning":"consequentialist","policy":"none","emotion":"fear"},
{"id":"ytr_UgwTX3T7YLLZBvQirSt4AaABAg.AQRoBsJyR1sAQRogZlQ_Wh","responsibility":"none","reasoning":"mixed","policy":"none","emotion":"approval"},
{"id":"ytr_UgwTX3T7YLLZBvQirSt4AaABAg.AQRoBsJyR1sAQRpL1t_Zsp","responsibility":"none","reasoning":"mixed","policy":"none","emotion":"indifference"},
{"id":"ytr_UgwTX3T7YLLZBvQirSt4AaABAg.AQRoBsJyR1sAQRq6fsCtfu","responsibility":"none","reasoning":"mixed","policy":"none","emotion":"indifference"},
{"id":"ytr_UgzfWTIyxZVxT9PkyjF4AaABAg.AQ-cxAnlJSvAQ2rIWn_BWe","responsibility":"none","reasoning":"deontological","policy":"none","emotion":"outrage"},
{"id":"ytr_UgxzghU6kDYBi48vupZ4AaABAg.AQ-VI_FM3UqAQ1AdGtlSLF","responsibility":"company","reasoning":"consequentialist","policy":"none","emotion":"fear"},
{"id":"ytr_UgzaE7MuLfH0jW1P_A14AaABAg.AQ-O8GvqQTXAQaX99l_9bF","responsibility":"user","reasoning":"virtue","policy":"none","emotion":"disapproval"}
]