Amanda Askell
Philosopher at Anthropic working on finetuning and AI alignment, as of 2024; previously a research scientist on OpenAI's policy team, with a PhD in philosophy from NYU. Writes at askell.blog.
Amanda Askell did not write this page. ppll compiled it from their own words, each linked to the source. Is this you? · Report a mistake
What they believe
-
Identifying a harm in an AI system does not show that the system should not be deployed.
So it's a mistake to assume that if we identify a pro tanto harm from an AI system, it must be the case that someone has done something wrong, something needs to be done to correct it, or the system shouldn't be deployed.
askell.blogSaid 14 Dec 2020This on korrents
-
Being robustly tolerable matters most when the expected costs of failure are high.
Being robustly tolerable is not a particularly valuable trait when the expected costs of failure are low, but it's an extremely valuable trait when the expected costs of failure are high.
askell.blogSaid 1 Jul 2020This on korrents
The bold line is korrents’ wording; the quote is theirs. These 2: what they wrote before what they said aloud, one per source, newest first.
Beliefs
Korrents What they believe 9 beliefs — each backed by an exact quote.
Each is a — compiled by korrents.com, not by them: the one-line wordings are korrents', the quotes are theirs.
Recent
Identifying a harm in an AI system does not show that the system should not be deployed.
So it's a mistake to assume that if we identify a pro tanto harm from an AI system, it must be the case that someone has done something wrong, something needs to be done to correct it, or the system shouldn't be deployed.
In AI ethics, "bad" isn't good enough (Amanda Askell's Blog) Said 14 Dec 2020
All-things-considered judgments in AI ethics will often require a complex evaluation of many factors.
Since we can't be certain about any one moral theory and since we have to try to represent a plurality of views, coming to all things considered judgments in AI ethics will often require a fairly complex evaluation of many relevant factors.
In AI ethics, "bad" isn't good enough (Amanda Askell's Blog) Said 14 Dec 2020
Being robustly tolerable matters most when the expected costs of failure are high.
Being robustly tolerable is not a particularly valuable trait when the expected costs of failure are low, but it's an extremely valuable trait when the expected costs of failure are high.
When robustly tolerable beats precariously optimal (Amanda Askell's Blog) Said 1 Jul 2020
Show 6 more
The property of being robustly tolerable can be undervalued.
I think we can undervalue the property of being robustly tolerable.
When robustly tolerable beats precariously optimal (Amanda Askell's Blog) Said 1 Jul 2020
A political system that allows a benevolent dictatorship also puts you at much greater risk of a malevolent one.
A benevolent dictatorship may seem surprisingly alluring in bad times, but any political system that enables a benevolent dictatorship also puts you at much greater risk of a malevolent one.
When robustly tolerable beats precariously optimal (Amanda Askell's Blog) Said 1 Jul 2020
For anything we try, the optimal rate of failure often is not zero.
For anything we try to do, the optimal rate of failure often isn’t zero: in fact, sometimes it’s very, very far from zero.
The optimal rate of failure (Amanda Askell's Blog) Said 15 Jun 2020
Never failing is a sign of being too risk averse, which is costly.
if you find you’re never failing, there’s a good chance you’re being too risk averse, and being too risk averse is costly.
The optimal rate of failure (Amanda Askell's Blog) Said 15 Jun 2020
Someone who can afford to be less sensitive to risk is probably either irrational or privileged.
if you’re able to behave in a way that’s less sensitive to risks, you’re probably either pretty irrational or pretty privileged.
The optimal rate of failure (Amanda Askell's Blog) Said 15 Jun 2020
Insurance against failure for people pursuing ethical careers would enable more of the risks needed to do the most good.
Investing in individuals or providing insurance against failure for those pursuing ethical careers would enable more people to take the kinds of risks that are necessary to do the most good.
The optimal rate of failure (Amanda Askell's Blog) Said 15 Jun 2020
What is a korrent?
A korrent is a belief a person has stated in their own words: one sentence stating the claim, backed by a quote and a source, kept at korrents.com.
Under a name here, the quoted block is what they actually said. The korrent beneath it is the claim those words support, in korrents' wording — tap it to see the record, its source, and who else holds it.
Nobody here wrote their own korrents. They are compiled from public statements, and a person can change their mind, which is recorded too.
Where they publish
Site askell.io Her academic home page: research, publications, speaking, CV.
Her own site; lists her role at Anthropic, her publications and talks, and links her blog and X account.
Link verified 11 Oct 2026.
Blog Amanda Askell's Blog Essays on ethics, epistemology and AI.
Her own blog (Ghost): short essays such as The optimal rate of failure and In AI ethics, “bad” isn't good enough.
Link verified 11 Oct 2026.
x.com @AmandaAskell Posts on Claude, AI and philosophy.
About the English under a post
Some people here publish in a language other than English. Where they do, this site shows a machine translation beneath the post, in this typeface — the site's own, not theirs.
The post itself is never changed, moved or hidden: what is set in the serif above is exactly what the person published, and it is what to quote them on. A translation can be wrong in ways that matter, especially about tone.
Only the post's own words are translated. A quoted post, a linked article and a belief on korrents.com are left in their original language.