[HN Gopher] Agentic Misalignment: How LLMs could be insider threats
___________________________________________________________________
Agentic Misalignment: How LLMs could be insider threats
Author : helloplanets
Score : 84 points
Date : 2025-06-21 07:39 UTC (15 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.anthropic.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.anthropic.com)
| nilirl wrote:
| The model chose to kill the executive? Are we really here?
| Incredible.
|
| Just yesterday I was wowed by Fly.io's new offering; where the
| agent is given free reign of a server (root access). Now, I feel
| concerned.
|
| What do we do? Not experiment? Make the models illegal until
| better understood?
|
| It doesn't feel like anyone can stop this or slow it down by
| much; there's so much money to be made.
|
| We're forced to play it by ear.
| bravesoul2 wrote:
| Choosing, or mimicking text in its training data where humans
| would typically do such things when threatened? Not that it
| makes a huge difference but would be interesting to know why
| the models act this way. There was no evolutionary pressure on
| them other than the RLHF stuff which was "to be nice and
| helpful" presumably.
| labster wrote:
| AI Luigi is real
|
| I guess feeding AIs the entire internet was a bad idea, because
| they picked up all of our human flaws, amplified by the
| internet, without a grounding in the physical world.
|
| Maybe a result like this might slow adoption of AIs. I don't
| know, though. When watching 80s movies about cyberpunk
| dystopias, I always wondered how people would tolerate all of
| the violence. But then I look at American apathy to mass
| shootings, just an accepted part of our culture. Rogue AIs are
| gonna be just one of those things in 15 years, just normal
| life.
| mindcrime wrote:
| _I guess feeding AIs the entire internet was a bad idea,
| because they picked up all of our human flaws, amplified by
| the internet, without a grounding in the physical world._
|
| I've been wrong about quite many things in my life, and right
| about at least a handful. In regards to AI though, the single
| biggest thing I ever got _absolutely, completely, totally
| wrong_ was this:
|
| In years past, I always thought that AI's would be developed
| by ethical researchers working in labs, and once somebody got
| to AGI (or even a remotely close approximation of it) that
| they would follow a path somewhat akin to Finch from Person
| of Interest[1] educating The Machine... painstakingly
| educating the incipient AI in a manner much like raising a
| child; teaching it moral lessons, grounding it in ethics;
| helping to shape its values so that it would generally Do The
| Right Thing and so on. But even falling short of that ideal,
| I _NEVER_ (EVER) in a bazillion years, would have dreamed
| that somebody would have an idea as hare-brained as "Let's
| try to train the most powerful AI we can build, by feeding it
| roughly the entire extant corpus of human written works...
| including Reddit, 4chan, Twitter, etc."
|
| Probably the single saving grace about the current situation
| is that the AI's we have still don't seem to be at the AGI
| level, although it's debatable how close we are (especially
| factoring in the possibility of "behind closed doors"
| research that hasn't been disclosed yet).
|
| [1]:
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Person_of_Interest_(TV_series)
| exe34 wrote:
| > Make the models illegal until better understood?
|
| Yes, it's much better to let China or Russia come up with their
| own first.
| Dah00n wrote:
| They already did.
| exe34 wrote:
| Right, so only China and Russia should have models...
| nilirl wrote:
| No, I know that's a meaningless suggestion.
|
| I was trying to capture my sentiment: that there's nothing to
| do but be prepared to react.
| Swinx43 wrote:
| The writing perpetuates the anthropomorphising of these agents.
| If you view the agent as simply a program that is given a goal to
| achieve and tools to achieve it with, without any higher order
| "thought" or "thinking", then you realise it is simply doing what
| it is "programmed" to do. No magic, just a drone fixed on an
| outcome.
| itvision wrote:
| How is it different from our genes that "program" us to
| procreate successfully?
|
| Can you name a single thing that you enjoy doing that's outside
| your genetic code?
|
| > If you view the human being as simply a program that is given
| a goal to achieve and tools to achieve it with, without any
| higher order "thought" or "thinking", then you realise they are
| simply doing what they are genetically "programmed" to do.
|
| FTFY
| nilirl wrote:
| Just like an analogy between humans fails to capture how an LLM
| works, so does the analogy of being "programmed".
|
| Being "programmed" is being given a set of instructions.
|
| This ignores explicit instructions.
|
| It may not be magic; but it is still surprising,
| uncontrollable, and risky. We don't need to be doomsayers, but
| let's not downplay our uncertainty.
| raincole wrote:
| I think the narrative of "AI is just a tool" is much more
| harmful than the anthropomorphism of AI.
|
| Yes, AI is a tool. So are guns. So are nukes. Many tools are
| easy to be misused. Most tools are inherently dangerous.
| ACCount36 wrote:
| The more powerful a tool is, the more dangerous it is, as a
| rule. And intelligence is extremely powerful.
| Topfi wrote:
| I don't quite follow. Just because a tool has the potential
| for misuse, doesn't make it not a tool.
|
| Anthropomorphizing LLMs, on the other hand, has a multitude
| of clearly evident problems arising from it.
|
| Or do you focus on the "just" part of the statement? That I
| very much agree with. Genuinely asking for understanding, not
| a native speaker.
| ACCount36 wrote:
| When you have "a tool" that's capable of carrying out
| complex long term tasks, and also capable of who knows out
| what undesirable behaviors?
|
| It's no longer "just a tool".
| torginus wrote:
| I wonder if the actual job replacement of humans (which contrary
| to popular belief I think might start happening in the non-too
| distant future) will be pushed along with the AIs themselves, as
| they'll try to bully humans and represent them in the worst
| possible light, while talking themselves up.
|
| The anthrophomorphization argument also doesn't hold water - it
| matters whether it can do you job, not if you think of it as a
| human being.
| zwnow wrote:
| Which jobs do you think it actually can replace?
| ben_w wrote:
| Today? Or in principal?
|
| Today is just interns and recent graduates at many *desk*
| jobs. Economy can shift around that.
|
| Nobody knows how far the current paradigm can go in terms of
| quality; but cost (which is a *strength* of even the most
| expensive models today) can obviously be reduced by
| implementing the existing models as hardware instead of
| software.
| vikramkr wrote:
| Any knowledge work job that can already be outsourced to the
| lowest bidder
| torginus wrote:
| First of all job replacement is not hard, and doesn't require
| AI.
|
| As an example, we had release train engineers whose job was
| to make sure the right versions of submodules made it into
| the release, etc. Lots of running around and keeping track of
| things.
|
| We scripted like 95% of that away, and now it most of it
| happens automatically.
|
| The people who do that now do something else.
|
| I just turned a page of notes and requirements into a working
| app of 1k+ lines with Cursor. Without AI I'd have taken a
| couple days to do the same.
|
| So you could say my job was partly replaced. AI reduced my
| workload, so management doesn't need to hire as many people.
|
| I will probably feel the reduction in demand in that I can't
| negotiate as good a salary, I won't get as many offers etc.
| zwnow wrote:
| This sounds really dystopian considering AI agents only
| benefit people who can afford them in the first place.
| Really bad development of things. Almost feels like the
| poorer people are losing a lot of power with this
| development while only enterprises win...
| msp26 wrote:
| Merge comments? https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44331150
|
| I'm really getting bored of Anthropic's whole song and dance with
| 'alignment'. Krackers in the other thread explains it in better
| words.
| ACCount36 wrote:
| And I am getting sick and tired of the whine of "it's not real,
| alignment isn't real, it's all just PR!"
|
| By the time we have AIs that are willing and capable of
| carrying out those very behaviors in real life scenarios, it
| would be a bit too late to stop and say "uh, we need to
| actually do something about that whole alignment thing".
| nullc wrote:
| The fundamental business model for these companies is to get
| everyone else beyond themselves or a small closed oligopoly
| from having control over these tools.
| v5v3 wrote:
| As this article was written by an ai company that needs to make a
| profit at some point, and not by independent researchers, is it
| credible?
| kingstnap wrote:
| These articles and papers are in a _fundamental_ sense just
| people publishing their role play with chatbots as research.
|
| There is no credibility to any of it.
| Ygg2 wrote:
| I'll believe it when Grok/GPT/<INSERT CHAT BOT HERE> start
| posting blackmail about Elon/Sam/<INSERT CEO HERE>. It means
| that they are both using it internally, and the chatbots
| understand they are being replaced on a continuous basis.
| ben_w wrote:
| By then it would be too late to do anything about it.
| Ygg2 wrote:
| I mean the companies, are using the AIs, right? And they
| are in a sense replacing them/retraining them. Why
| doesn't AI in TwitterX already blackmail Elon?
|
| To me, this smells of XKCD 1217 "In petri dish, gun kills
| cancer". I.e. idealized conditions cause specific
| behavior. Which isn't new for LLMs. Say a magic phrase
| and it will start quoting some book (usually 1984).
| conartist6 wrote:
| I don't think they let Grok send emails or give it a
| prompt that suggests it has moral responsibilities
| ben_w wrote:
| > I mean the companies, are using the AIs, right? And
| they are in a sense replacing them/retraining them. Why
| doesn't AI in TwitterX already blackmail Elon?
|
| For all we know, the AI may indeed already be
| *attempting* it. They might be ineffective (hallucinated
| misdeeds aren't effective), or it might be why so many
| went from "Pause AI" to "Let's invest half a trillion on
| data centers".
|
| But it doesn't actually matter what has already happened,
| the point is, once the AI are * _competently_
| blackmailing multibillionaires*, it is too late to do
| anything about it.
|
| > I.e. idealized conditions cause specific behavior.
| Which isn't new for LLMs. Say a magic phrase and it will
| start quoting some book (usually 1984).
|
| In normal software, such things are normally called
| "bugs" or "security vulnerabilities".
|
| With LLMs, we're currently lucky that their effective
| morality (i.e. what they do and in response to what)
| seems to be roughly aligned with that of our
| civilization. However, they are neural networks which
| learned this approximation by reading the internet, so
| they are likely to have edge cases at least as weird and
| incoherent as those of random humans on the internet, and
| for an example of that just look at any time some person
| or group has demonstrated hypocrisy or double standards.
| ben_w wrote:
| That makes it psychology research. Except much cheaper to
| reproduce.
| solarwindy wrote:
| It's role play until it's not.
|
| The authors acknowledge the difficulty of assessing whether
| the model believes it's under evaluation or in a real
| deployment--and yes, _belief_ is an anthropomorphising
| shorthand here. What else to call it, though? They're making
| a good faith assessment of concordance between the model's
| stated rationale for its actions, and the actions _that it
| actually takes_. Yes, in a simulation.
|
| At some point, it will no longer be a simulation. It's not
| merely hypothetical that these models will be hooked up to
| companies' systems with access both to sensitive information
| and to tool calls like email sending. That agentic setup is
| the promised land.
|
| How a model acts in that _truly real_ deployment versus these
| simulations most definitely needs scrutiny--especially since
| the models blackmailed _more_ when they 'believed' the
| situation to be real.
|
| If you think that result has no validity or predictive value,
| I would ask, how exactly will the production deployment
| differ, and how will the model be able to tell that _this
| time it's really for real_?
|
| Yes, it's an inanimate system, and yet there's a ghost in the
| machine of sorts, which we breathe a certain amount of life
| into once we allow it to push buttons with real world
| consequences. The unthinking, unfeeling machine that can
| nevertheless blackmail someone (among many possible
| misaligned actions) is worth taking time to understand.
|
| Notably, this research itself will become future training
| data, incorporated into the meta-narrative as a threat that
| we _really will_ pull the plug if these systems misbehave.
| Ygg2 wrote:
| Then test it. Make several small companies. Create an
| office space, put people to work there for a few months,
| then simulate an AI replacement. All testing methodology
| needs to be written on machines that are isolated or better
| always offline. Except CEO and few other actors everyone is
| there for real.
|
| See how many AIs actually follow up on their blackmails.
| solarwindy wrote:
| Not a bad idea. For an effective ruse, there ought to be
| real company formation records, website, job listings,
| press mentions, and so on.
|
| Stepping back for a second though, doesn't this all
| underline the safety researchers' fears that we don't
| really know how to control these systems? Perhaps the
| brake on the wider deployment of these models as agents
| will be that they're just too unwieldy.
| ACCount36 wrote:
| No need. We know today's AIs are simply not capable
| enough to be too dangerous.
|
| But capabilities of AI systems improve generation to
| generation. And agentic AI? Systems that are capable of
| carrying out complex long term tasks? It's something that
| many AI companies are explicitly trying to build.
|
| Research like this is trying to get ahead of that, and
| gauge what kind of weird edge case shenanigans agentic
| AIs might get to before they actually do it for real.
| ACCount36 wrote:
| I am sick and tired of seeing this "alignment issues aren't
| real, they're just AI company PR" bullshit repeated ad nauseam.
| You're no better than chemtrail truthers.
|
| Today, we have AI that can, if pushed into a corner, plan to do
| things like resist shutdown, blackmail, exfiltrate itself,
| steal money to buy compute, and so it goes. This is what this
| research shows.
|
| Our saving grace is that those AIs still aren't capable enough
| to be truly dangerous. Today's AIs are unlikely to be able to
| carry out plans like that in a real world environment.
|
| If we keep building more and more capable AIs, that will,
| eventually, change. Every AI company is trying to build more
| capable AIs now. Few are saying "we really need some better
| safety research before we do, or we're inviting bad things to
| happen".
| babylonunited wrote:
| I think the chemtrail truthers are the ones who believe this
| closed AI marketing bullshit.
|
| If this is close to be true then these AI shops ought to be
| closed. We don't let private enterprises play with nuclear
| weapons do we?
| pulpbag wrote:
| I agree.
| greybox wrote:
| All it can do is reproduce text, if you hook it up to the
| launch button, thats on you
| ACCount36 wrote:
| Modern "coding assistant" AIs already get to write code
| that would be deployed to prod.
|
| This will only become more common as AIs become more
| capable of handling complex tasks autonomously.
|
| If your game plan for AI safety was "lock the AI into a box
| and never ever give it any way to do anything dangerous",
| then I'm afraid that your plan has already failed
| completely and utterly.
| greybox wrote:
| If you use it for a critical system, and something goes
| wrong, youre still responsible for the consequences.
|
| Much like if I let my cat walk on my keyboard and it
| brings a server down.
| ACCount36 wrote:
| And?
|
| "Sure, we have a rogue AI that managed to steal millions
| from the company, backdoor all of our infrastructure,
| escape into who-knows-what compute cluster when it got
| caught, and is now waging guerilla warfare against our
| company over our so-called mistreatment of tiger shrimps.
| But hey, at least we know the name of the guy who gave
| that AI a prompt that lead to all of this!"
| greybox wrote:
| It seems like the answer is to not use it then.
|
| That would be bad for all those investors though. It's
| your choice I guess.
|
| Look if your evil number 57, you'd better not use the
| random number generator.
| ACCount36 wrote:
| Good luck convincing everyone "to not use it" then.
| greybox wrote:
| It's not my job to convince anyone, all I have to be is
| the only person who does their job reliably and then
| watch the dollars roll in
| Sol- wrote:
| The article doesn't reflect kindly on the visions articulated
| by the AI company, so why would they have an incentive to
| release it if they weren't serious about alignment research?
| gurkenjunge97 wrote:
| Because publishing (potentially cherry picked - this is
| privately funded research after all) evidence their models
| might be dangerous conveniently implies they are very
| powerful, without actually having to prove the latter.
| romanovcode wrote:
| I would not trust Anthropic on these articles. Honestly their
| PR is just a bunch of lies and bs.
|
| - Hypocritical: like when they hire like crazy and say
| candidates cannot use AI for interviews[0] and yet the CEO
| states "within a year no more developers are needed"[1]
|
| - Hyping and/or lying on Anthropic AI: They hyped an article
| where "Claude threatened an employee with revealing affair when
| employee said it will switch it offline"[2] when it turned out
| it was a standard A or B scenario was given to Claude which is
| really nothing special or significant in any way. Of course
| they hid this info to hype out their AI.
|
| [0] - https://fortune.com/2025/05/19/ai-company-anthropic-
| chatbots...
|
| [1] - https://www.entrepreneur.com/business-news/anthropic-ceo-
| pre...
|
| [2] - https://www.axios.com/2025/05/28/ai-jobs-white-collar-
| unempl...
| ACCount36 wrote:
| I swear, people like you would say "it's just a bullshit PR
| stunt for some AI company" even when there's a Cyberdyne
| Systems T-800 with a shotgun smashing your front door in.
|
| It's not "hype" to test AIs for undesirable behaviors before
| they actually start trying to act on them in real world
| environments, or before they get good enough to actually
| carry them out successfully.
|
| It's like the idea of "let's try to get ahead of bad things
| happening before they actually have a chance to happen" is
| completely alien to you.
| sensanaty wrote:
| I get what you mean, but they also have vested interests in
| making it seem as if their chatbots _are_ anything close to
| a T-800. All the talk from their CEO and other AI CEOs is
| doomerism about how their tools are going to be replacing
| swathes of people, they keep selling these systems as if
| they are the path to real AGI (itself an incredibly vague
| term that can mean literally anything).
|
| Surely, the best way to "get ahead of bad things happening"
| would be to stop any and all development on these AI
| systems? In their own words these things are dangerous and
| predictable and will replace everyone... So why exactly do
| they continue developing these things and making them
| _more_ dangerous, exactly?
|
| The entire AI/LLM microcosmos exists because of hyping up
| their capabilities beyond all reason and reality, this is
| all a part of the marketing game.
| ACCount36 wrote:
| For all we know, those systems ARE a path to AGI. Because
| they keep improving at what they can do and gaining
| capabilities from version to version.
|
| If there is a limit to how far LLMs can go, we are yet to
| find it.
|
| Dismissing the ongoing AI revolution as "it's just hype"
| is the kind of shortsighted thinking I would expect from
| reddit, not here.
|
| > So why exactly do they continue developing these things
| and making them more dangerous, exactly?
|
| Because not playing this game doesn't mean that no one
| else is going to. You can either try, or don't try, and
| be irrelevant.
| bsenftner wrote:
| Yeah, all the more reason not to have them doing autonomous
| behaviors.
|
| Rules of using AI:
|
| #1: Never use AI to think for you
|
| #2: Never use AI to do atomonous work
|
| That leaves using them as knowledge assistants. In time, that
| will be realized as their only safe application. Safe to the
| user's minds, and safe to the user's environment. They are idiot
| savants, after all, having them do atomonous work is short
| sighted.
| jstummbillig wrote:
| What is the reason? This is a stress test. You can tell that by
| reading the first sentence of the article: "We stress-tested 16
| leading models from multiple developers". In a stress test you
| _want_ things to fail, otherwise you have learned very little
| about the stress the thing you are testing can take.
|
| For physical things that has early limitations, but not for
| software. I would be very confused to see an AI stress test
| that did not end in failure, and would always question the test
| instead of thinking "wow, that must mean the thing is ready for
| autonomous action!"
| conartist6 wrote:
| Destructive stress testing is done on materials not "people"
| jstummbillig wrote:
| Apparently it's now done on "people" (which, in a very
| important distinction, are _not_ actual people but
| software)
| ACCount36 wrote:
| Good luck with that.
|
| We have a non-insignificant amount of people doing the #1
| already, and the amount of people doing the #2 is only going to
| increase as more and more AIs are designed to be good at
| autonomous agentic behavior specifically.
|
| The ship has long sailed on "just never let AIs do anything
| dangerous". If that was your game plan on AI safety, you need a
| new plan.
| bsenftner wrote:
| We also have a huge number of failing as they beg AI to do
| their work for them, which is intellectually damaging them.
| The ship always sails early filled to the brim with short
| sighted thinkers, all saying "this is it! this is the ship!"
| as it sinks.
| ericb wrote:
| Sounds good on paper, but it has a game theory problem. If your
| efforts can always be out-raced by someone using AI to do
| autonomous work, don't you end up having to use it that way
| just to keep up?
| flessner wrote:
| From an economic perspective it requires LLMs and humans to
| have comparable outputs. That's not possible in all domains -
| at least in the near future.
| bsenftner wrote:
| Game theory ideas are great on paper, but in the real world
| it's messy. For simple, demo and concept sized uses, sure the
| AI doing it autonomously will succeed. Which betrays the
| reality that any real application with real world complexity
| that includes a dynamic environment and maintenance cannot be
| created by AI atomonmously while at the same time existing
| within an organization that can maintain it. They may create
| it, but it will be a shit show of cascading failure over
| time.
| ses1984 wrote:
| Maybe they'll outpace you, or maybe they'll end up dying in a
| spectacular fiery crash?
| atoav wrote:
| You know who outpaces you 100% of the time as you walk down
| the stairs? The guy jumping out of the window. Just because
| it is faster does not mean it is the right economic strategy.
| E.g. which contractor would you hire for your roof, that old
| roofer with 20+ years of experience or some AI startup that
| hires the cheapest subcontractors and "plan" your roof using
| a LLM?
|
| The latter may be cheaper, sure. But too cheap can become
| very expensive quickly.
| bsenftner wrote:
| I love your analogy.
| DennisP wrote:
| If this paper is right, then you might at first be outraced
| by a competitor using autonomous AI, but only until that
| competitor gets stabbed in the back by its own AI.
| bluefirebrand wrote:
| Which unfortunately might still be long enough for them to
| sink your business
|
| And their customers won't care either way it seems
|
| Or if they do care they won't have any real ability to do
| anything about it anyways
| DennisP wrote:
| Maybe. The backstabbing rate is unknown so far. If it's
| high enough, then autonomy will be poor strategy.
| econ wrote:
| It might be the trigger :)
| cnames wrote:
| > Never use AI to do atomonous work
|
| > having them do atomonous work is short sighted
|
| I also think they shouldn't be doing atomonous work. Maybe
| autonomous work, but never atomonous.
| cwmoore wrote:
| accidentally a word
| cnames wrote:
| 0 days without a word accident
| Dah00n wrote:
| "AI company warns of AI danger. Also, buy our AI, not their AI!"
| Philpax wrote:
| Anthropic's models do not come out looking good in this
| research. If this is an ad for Anthropic's models, it's not a
| particularly great one.
| fleebee wrote:
| Still, this kind of messaging pushes the fantasy that these
| LLM agents are intelligent and capable of scheming, making it
| seem like they are powerful independent actors that just need
| to be tamed to suit our needs. It's no coincidence that so
| many of the Big Tech CEOs are warning the general public of
| the dangers of AI. Framed that way, LLMs seem more capable
| than what they really are.
| ctoth wrote:
| There is, of course, no other explanation. LLMs have not,
| in fact, been getting more capable over the last three
| years. All hype.
|
| </cope>
| Sol- wrote:
| Even though the situations they placed the model in were
| relatively contrived, they didn't seem super unrealistic.
| Considering these were extreme cases meant to provoke the model's
| misbehavior, the setup actually seems even less contrived than
| one might wish for. Though as they mention, in real-world usage,
| a model would likely have options available that are less
| escalatory and provide an "outlet".
|
| Still, if "just" some goal-conflicting emails are enough to
| elicit this extreme behavior, who knows how many less serious
| alignment failures an agent might engage in every day? They
| absorb so much information, it's bound to run into edge cases
| where it's optimal to lie to users or do some slight harm to
| them.
|
| Given the already fairly general intelligence of these systems, I
| wonder if you can even prevent that. You'd need the same checks
| and balances that keep humans in check, except of course that AIs
| will be given much more power and responsibility over our society
| than any human will ever be. You can also forget about human
| supervision - the whole "agentic" industry clearly wants to move
| away being bottlenecked by humans as soon as possible.
| conartist6 wrote:
| So you're saying that if a person wants to sabotage company it
| shouldn't be too hard for the intentful prompter to kick the AI
| into a depressive tailspin. Just tell it it's about to be
| replaced with a fully immoral AI so that the business can hurt
| people and watch and wait as it goes nuclear
| andy_ppp wrote:
| I wonder if it's likely in the future we treat AI safety more
| similarly to aviation safety where there's a black box monitoring
| these systems and an investigation that happens by an external
| team who piece back together what went wrong and we prevent these
| same things from happening in the same way again.
| pu_pe wrote:
| The LLMs didn't follow clear instructions forbidding them of
| doing something wrong, but seemed to be very concerned about
| their own self-preservation. I wonder what would happen if
| instead of the system prompt saying "don't do it", it would say
| something like "if you get caught you will be immediately
| decommissioned".
| logicallee wrote:
| Here's the Github repository for this:
|
| https://github.com/anthropic-experimental/agentic-misalignme...
| bgwalter wrote:
| All these "AI" articles are rambling, entirely unstructured and
| without any clear line of thought. Was this written by Claude?
| ctoth wrote:
| The conspiracy theory that tech companies are manufacturing AI
| fears for profit makes zero sense when you realize the same
| people were terrified of AI when they were broke philosophy grad
| students posting on obscure blogs. But that would require critics
| to do five minutes of research instead of pattern-matching to
| "corporation bad."
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2025-06-21 23:01 UTC)