> In 2012, on the 35th anniversary of the Wow! signal, the Arecibo Observatory was said to have beamed a digital stream towards Hipparcos 34511, 33277, and 43587.[45] The transmission consisted of approximately 10,000 Twitter messages solicited for the purpose by the National Geographic Channel, bearing the hashtag "#ChasingUFOs" (a promotion for one of the channel's TV series).[46] The sponsor also included a series of video vignettes featuring verbal messages from various celebrities.

What an inane, embarrassing "response", if the original was any attempt to communicate. (Sounds like it probably was not, but still...)

Did you win the bet?

Idk, I find it mind-bending but quite readable.

Might help interpretation to say on the front page that it's a five point scale with 0 (or 1?) being the safest score. This can be picked up from colors and the bars in the individual reports, but it takes a minute to figure it out.

There's something especially creepy about AIs talking in the second person about biological processes they don't experience.

Yes. Do this. These problems likely mean you have muddled the context.

The article too long and I didn't read the whole thing, but I'm glad the author came to understand that arguing won't help.

Just saying "write up what you know", with no other clues, should not perform any better than generic compaction.

What is take from this is that it's pointless to try to find out why an LLM does something - it has no intentions. No life and no meaning, quite literally.

And if you try to dig you'll only activate other parts of its training, transcripts of people being interrogated - patients or prisoners, who knows. Scary and uncreative stuff.