Yes, especially with shifts in focus of a long conversation. But given the high error rates of Opus 4.6 the last few weeks it is possibly due to other factors. Conversational and code prodding has been essential.

Very well done study with a cautious interpretation of potential translational relevance in humans.

The paper is open access. The discussion does a fine job of providing a full context for interpreting their findings.

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-026-10191-6

> We can steer our own learning corpus

This is critical. We have some degree of attentional autonomy. And we have a complex tapestry of algorithms running in thalamocortical circuits that generate “Nows”. Truncation commands produce sequences of acts (token-like products).

Well worth reading from Pam Vagata. Some important insights and predictions.

Her vision of autonomy is not true autonomy, but a vision of AI servants on slightly longer chains.

Is that fair? Yes, I think so.

The key questions are not being asked: What drives autonomy? Who or what selects the motivation and defines the scope of action in a real stateful world?

I set my thermostat and it acts “autonomously” over the range I set. But that is not the autonomy she implies.

Give me CS types and founders like Hassabis, Sutton, Kanerva, Amodei, Bach, Levin, LeCun, Brooks, Hawkins, Sejnowski, and Friston (and about ten other scientists) who understand some of the core requirements of autonomy (but not all).

One hard but invaluable book to read before contending with the word autonomy: Maturana HC, Varela F (1980) Autopoiesis and Cognition. Finally reissued as a paperback.

The review should have expanded on this at a practical level even mom and dad could understand—the standard “better life through chemistry” angle.

Perfect! I read this “heart-warming” overview of two papers in Science and learned zero about why this is of any significance. The discovery is significant but I had to probe Opus 4.6 to find out why.

The personal focus is a distraction. It would be great if science writers could focus on the science and significance of the advance.

Not sure why you were downvoted. I love the breathless enthusiasm of the article, but I still have no idea why (or if) this is important. What did you learn from Opus?

Quitting their jobs? How is that the pragmatic or effective response?

Quitting no. Quite quitting or internal turmoil could be beneficial. Of course, in case these people meaningfully contributed in the first place otherwise it's a good pretext to fire for cause without any severance.

How would it be pragmatic to say, "oh well!" and continue working there?

Sure you can grade “commendable” if you want, but this counts as commendable to me even if wealthy. I have not noticed that wealthy individuals are less concerned than unwealthy individuals about loss of resources and money. In fact, wealth seems to exacerbate the problem.

I do not know the OP. For some people, a million is life changing. For others, it could be a marginal increment to their bottom line. It is not then a big leap to think some people would do pretty terrible things for a mil, while others would take the higher ground. The OP also alludes to this with their indication of not having dependents.

All excellent points to add to the motivation to hold the line just where it has been.

Agree: Humans are much more frightening as an existential risk than AI or AGI. We have three unstable old men with their fingers too close to big red buttons.