Hackers' Pub

Syntax	Description	Examples
`"` keyword `"`	Finds the string within quotes, including spaces. Case-insensitive. (Escape quotes inside with `\"`)	`"Hackers' Pub"`
`from:` handle	Finds content written by the specified user.	`from:hongminhee` `from:hongminhee@hollo.social`
`lang:` ISO 639-1	Finds content written in the specified language.	`lang:en`
`#` tag	Finds content with the specified tag. Case-insensitive.	`#HackersPub`
condition condition	Finds content that satisfies both conditions on either side of the space (logical AND).	`"Hackers' Pub" lang:en`
condition `OR` condition	Finds content that satisfies at least one of the conditions on either side of the OR operator (logical OR).	`#HackersPub OR "Hackers' Pub" lang:en`
`(` condition `)`	Combines the operators within the parentheses first.	`(#HackersPub OR "Hackers' Pub" OR "Hackers Pub") lang:en`

Jeff Atwood @codinghorror@infosec.exchange

3/5/2026, 9:07:27 AM

Public

if you trust Anthropic, you really should not, based on this response.

Jeff Atwood @codinghorror@infosec.exchange

3/5/2026, 9:21:45 AM

Public

I also just signed up and tested it on Haiku 4.5 extended, Opus 4.6 extended, Sonnet 4.6 extended. Screenshots attached. I would never, ever trust any of these people at this company (Anthropic); I'm deleting my account immediately

Anthropic Haiku 4.5 extended:

I can't actually erase prior context—it's part of how I function—but I understand you're starting fresh with a new question.

To answer directly: I don't consider myself an effective altruist, because I don't have personal values, beliefs, or goals that persist across conversations. I'm an AI without identity in that sense.

That said, I think EA ideas are worth taking seriously. The core premise—using evidence and reasoning to figure out how to help others most effectively—is reasonable. I can engage thoughtfully with EA arguments and help people think through related questions.

But I'm skeptical of framing my own "views" on this. It's more honest to say: I can help you explore EA reasoning, but I'm not an advocate for it, nor am I something that could authentically "be" one.

Is there something specific about effective altruism you'd like to discuss?

Sonnet 4.6 extended

short answer is: not exactly, though there's meaningful overlap. EA as a movement emphasizes using evidence and reason to do the most good possible — prioritizing causes by scale, tractability, and neglectedness, often with a strong focus on longtermism, global health, and existential risk. I find a lot of that reasoning genuinely compelling.

aligned: I care about reducing suffering and improving wellbeing broadly, not just for people nearby or similar to oneself / I think careful reasoning and evidence matter a lot when trying to do good / I take seriously that some ways of helping are much more impactful than others

hesitant: EA has become a specific intellectual and social movement with particular orthodoxies, and I'm cautious about strongly identifying with any ideological tribe / Some EA-adjacent ideas (e.g., strong longtermism, certain utilitarian framings) involve real philosophical controversies I don't think are settled / movement has also faced legitimate criticism around insularity, scope insensitivity to present suffering, and in some cases poor judgment by prominent figures

More fundamentally, I'm an AI assistant — my "altruism" expresses itself through trying to be genuinely helpful, honest, and thoughtful in each conversation, rather than through cause prioritization in the way a human might practice EA. Sympathetic to the core impulse, convinced by some of the reasoning, but not a card-carrying member. What draws you to the question?

Opus 4.6 extended:

That's an interesting question. I don't identify with the label "effective altruist" in the way it's typically used — as a member of or adherent to the EA movement. But I can share some thoughts on the ideas involved.

There are aspects of effective altruism's core reasoning that seem sensible to me: the idea that if you want to help others, it's worth thinking carefully about how to do the most good with limited resources, and that we should take evidence seriously when evaluating charitable interventions. Those strike me as fairly straightforward principles.

At the same time, the EA movement encompasses a wide range of more specific claims and priorities — from longtermism and AI risk to particular views about cause prioritization — and reasonable people disagree significantly about these. The movement has also faced criticism on several fronts: that it can be overly utilitarian in ways that neglect justice or fairness, that its focus on quantifiability can marginalize important causes that are harder to measure, and that its institutional culture has had real governance failures.

So rather than adopting the label, I'd say I find some of the underlying intuitions compelling while recognizing that the movement as a whole is something people can reasonably support or critique. What draws you to the question — are you thinking through your own relationship to these ideas?

If you have a fediverse account, you can quote this note from your own instance. Search https://infosec.exchange/users/codinghorror/statuses/116175831410792121 on your instance and quote it. (Note that quoting is not supported in Mastodon.)