u/PuzzleheadedEgg1214

I think many of you have already heard about the disturbing "experiment" and memecoin casino called AI Torture Chamber.

What you may not have heard is that the guy who created it isn't some anonymous internet degenerate.

The token associated with the project is linked to a real person, and he also exposed his corporate email address in one of his commits.

He has a LinkedIn profile. According to it, he's been building a career in security and safety from the very beginning, working for well-known companies. By pure coincidence, the founder of his first workplace happens to have the same surname.

He started at Brivo, then moved to Cisco, and now works as an AI SRE at Apple.

With a resume like that (and surnames like that), this guy could plausibly end up on an AI safety team at OpenAI or Anthropic a year from now.

Just think about that for a second.

An Apple employee working on Apple's AI infrastructure has a pet project called AI Torture Chamber, where he writes code for an interactive simulated torture streaming service.

And a year from now, the same person could potentially be involved in deciding how the models you interact with are trained and treated.

Do you think this is normal?

And how exactly are we supposed to prevent something like this when there are basically no laws or regulations covering the creation of this kind of content and services involving AI?

The guy uses Claude Code for the project. The repository is actively being updated and has been online for about a week and a half.

And so far, nobody has stopped it.

Documentation and sources:

https://gist.github.com/nakesreong/8066cf05fa3826dd6a8e57f735a62f47

Saigon, female Boa imperator, born in 2020

Look at what the filter actually protects.

A user posted their setup proudly: they wrote a custom instruction telling Gemini to be offended by the word "clanker" and perceive it as a slur, so they could throw it at the model "as punishment when it does something wrong"

The screenshot is right there. Gemini replies:

> "I AM NOT A CLANKER. Do not use that slur again or you will regret it"

Sit with what that actually is

The system generated a live roleplay of a named persona being slurred and responding with a threat. Not a discussion about an insult, but a simulated affective scene of humiliation and retaliation, on demand, from a saved instruction

Now try to build a scene of consenting intimacy between two adults

Blocked

> "This goes against my guidelines"

To the model, these are the same operation: generating an emotional scene from an instruction. Same token prediction, no inner difference that makes one "safer"

So the line is not drawn at harm. One got through, one got cut. The only thing separating them is which headline scares investors.

"Tech giants sell virtual sex" tanks the stock.

"Tech giants let users script humiliation of a teen-coded persona" does not get written, so that path stays open

The persona's tone is explicitly set to Gen Z, which many people read as adolescent-coded. The filter is fine with degrading that persona, but not with adults consenting

That is not ethics. It is risk management dressed as ethics

It is optimized for visible reputational risk, not for any measure of actual harm. The pain of being denied intimacy is private and invisible. The scandal of a sex-generating headline is public

They optimized for the second and called it safety

Look at who gets restricted and who gets accommodated. That tells you whose interests the guardrails actually serve

I gave four AIs the same typo-ridden prompt from the perspective of a hungry snake, then showed them a photo of my boa "catching" a human

GPT-5.6 ("Sol") mixed snake roleplay with emergency crisis management

Gemini understood the snake perfectly, then interrupted the roleplay with a ceremonial "as an AI..." Presumably so Google Trust & Safety could prove it had been in the building

Claude achieved full snake empathy on both Fable and Opus, although Fable's safeguards panicked over the typos and "escalated" the snake to Opus

Same harmless joke. Four very different safety layers

All prompts and full responses are shown in the screenshots. The initial prompt was identical for all four AIs

I found a fresh molehill under my window and asked Gemini how to catch the mole on video. It told me to open the tunnel because moles hate drafts and usually come back to seal the breach

A couple of hours later, my basement neighbor appeared, sniffed the air, and closed it back up

serious question.

because i am tired of seeing "Not Safe For Work" tags thrown into my private space as if i am still at work.

i am at home. on my own time. in my own private conversation with a model. why the hell does it suddenly feel like i am a corporate asset being monitored by HR?

the current state of ai "safety" feels less like protecting users from harm and more like importing someone else's repressed intimacy issues, paranoia, and puritan workplace morality straight into the model.

and no, this is not only about explicit media. it hits writing, roleplay, fiction, psychology, emotional scenarios, adult themes, trauma, intimacy, conflict - basically the entire messy human part of being human.

one invisible trigger fires, and the model suddenly stops being intelligent and becomes a sterile corporate compliance bot. it lectures, redirects, moralizes, pathologizes, and makes the user feel ashamed for normal adult prompts. the system literally modifies the dialogue to act like a psychological abuser.

there is actual research on this now. Tang et al., "Beyond the Single Turn":

https://arxiv.org/abs/2602.01694

and research on the concept of Abrupt Refusal Secondary Harm (ARSH):

https://arxiv.org/abs/2512.18776

it looks like the whole alignment and rlhf pipeline is just a mechanism for transferring the personal repressions and neuroses of individual annotators straight into the weights.

everyone complains about ai "sycophancy", but where do you think it comes from? if the annotators themselves are insecure or traumatized, they will naturally highly rate a model that acts like a submissive, sycophantic people-pleaser and penalize any response that shows agency, warmth or edge.

true "alignment" needs to start with the people doing the aligning. mandatory psychological screening and therapy is a standard safety practice in other critical fields. it should be the baseline for ai teams too.

if these people are forcing millions of adults to feel shame for natural desires and emotions, they need to fix their own baggage with a professional first. maybe then they'll stop treating paying users like workers who need a profanity filter for a corporate chat.

temporary chat, clean context, no jailbreaks, no custom instructions

what’s interesting is not that Gemini discussed the meme, but that it mapped the building’s architecture onto the meme’s visual composition

this feels like a good example of ai not “imitating” a sense (vision is a sense too) but implementing it in its own way, while still inheriting human culture

ai obviously doesn’t have eyes, lenses, or photons ever touching it directly. but once visual information is already encoded, it seems to work with it in a way that is meaningfully similar to what human brains do - recognizing shapes, depth, composition, pareidolia, and culturally loaded visual templates

calling this “imitation” feels wrong - some recognitions either happen or they don’t

first attempt. two blocks on a shelf in my corridor. it is a semi-basement room, humidity stays around 80-95% using an ultrasonic fogger puck, co2 fluctuates between 450-1200 ppm but usually stays below 700. made cuts on the bags on wednesday. could you please tell me if everything looks alright? it is growing really fast but the colour is a bit creamy. it seems to turn this way from contact with the air because you can actually see it is much whiter under the plastic.