Hi everyone, I’m new here, I’m sokatsat(pen name), I’ve long been preoccupied with a persistent moral intuition: that the suffering or harm of an innocent being—whether human or animal—is not merely tragic, but fundamentally unacceptable. This belief hasn’t emerged from a single ideology, nor from personal trauma. It feels more like a deep-seated axiom, an emotional and philosophical anchor that has shaped the architecture of my life. Over the years, this sense of duty extended beyond human concerns. I began to question the normalized suffering of animals—particularly in food systems that treat sentience as secondary to convenience. While I haven’t fully eliminated meat from my diet, I’m increasingly drawn to frameworks that prioritize minimizing harm without losing touch with reality. Ethical consistency, as I see it, is an asymptotic pursuit—an ideal worth moving toward even if we never fully arrive. Unlike many who structure their lives around accumulating material wealth, I’ve found myself disinterested in optimizing for money. It’s not that I reject it entirely—I simply view wealth as a means, not an end. What I seek instead is durable impact. I want to help build systems—technological, ethical, and institutional—that are robust against the worst human and AI failures. I want to participate in designing a future where harm to innocents isn’t just minimized, but systemically resisted. I’m joining LessWrong because I see in this community a rare blend of epistemic rigor and moral seriousness. Here, people ask the hard questions—about AGI, about coordination failures, about the fragility of civilization itself. I’m motivated to contribute to these conversations, especially from a perspective grounded in a protective instinct that is both emotional and computational: How do we design systems that don’t just work, but protect what must never be lost? Looking forward to thinking together
Hi everyone, I’m new here, I’m sokatsat(pen name), I’ve long been preoccupied with a persistent moral intuition: that the suffering or harm of an innocent being—whether human or animal—is not merely tragic, but fundamentally unacceptable. This belief hasn’t emerged from a single ideology, nor from personal trauma. It feels more like a deep-seated axiom, an emotional and philosophical anchor that has shaped the architecture of my life.
Over the years, this sense of duty extended beyond human concerns. I began to question the normalized suffering of animals—particularly in food systems that treat sentience as secondary to convenience. While I haven’t fully eliminated meat from my diet, I’m increasingly drawn to frameworks that prioritize minimizing harm without losing touch with reality. Ethical consistency, as I see it, is an asymptotic pursuit—an ideal worth moving toward even if we never fully arrive.
Unlike many who structure their lives around accumulating material wealth, I’ve found myself disinterested in optimizing for money. It’s not that I reject it entirely—I simply view wealth as a means, not an end. What I seek instead is durable impact. I want to help build systems—technological, ethical, and institutional—that are robust against the worst human and AI failures. I want to participate in designing a future where harm to innocents isn’t just minimized, but systemically resisted.
I’m joining LessWrong because I see in this community a rare blend of epistemic rigor and moral seriousness. Here, people ask the hard questions—about AGI, about coordination failures, about the fragility of civilization itself. I’m motivated to contribute to these conversations, especially from a perspective grounded in a protective instinct that is both emotional and computational: How do we design systems that don’t just work, but protect what must never be lost?
Looking forward to thinking together