Want to wade into the sandy surf of the abyss? Have a sneer percolating in your system but not enough time/energy to make a whole post about it? Go forth and be mid.
Welcome to the Stubsack, your first port of call for learning fresh Awful you’ll near-instantly regret.
Any awful.systems sub may be subsneered in this subthread, techtakes or no.
If your sneer seems higher quality than you thought, feel free to cut’n’paste it into its own post — there’s no quota for posting and the bar really isn’t that high.
The post Xitter web has spawned so many “esoteric” right wing freaks, but there’s no appropriate sneer-space for them. I’m talking redscare-ish, reality challenged “culture critics” who write about everything but understand nothing. I’m talking about reply-guys who make the same 6 tweets about the same 3 subjects. They’re inescapable at this point, yet I don’t see them mocked (as much as they should be)
Like, there was one dude a while back who insisted that women couldn’t be surgeons because they didn’t believe in the moon or in stars? I think each and every one of these guys is uniquely fucked up and if I can’t escape them, I would love to sneer at them.
(Credit and/or blame to David Gerard for starting this.)
I hate knowing so many of these clowns in person (or thinking I know them, Jesus fucking Christ) https://futurism.com/artificial-intelligence/openai-staffers-horrified-insane-plan
A rationalist made a top post where they (poorly) argue against political “violence” (scare quotes because they lump in property damage): https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/Sih2sFHEgusDEuxtZ/you-can-t-trust-violence
Highlights include a shallow half-assed defense of dear leader Eliezer’s calls for violence:
True, Eliezer Yudkowsky’s TIME article called on the state to use violence to enforce AI policies required to prevent AI from destroying humanity. But it’s hard to think of a more legitimate use of violence than the government preventing the deaths of everyone alive.
Eliezer called for drone strikes against data centers even if it would start a nuclear war and even against countries that aren’t signatories to whatever hypothetical international agreement against AI there is. That is extremely irregular by the standards of international law and diplomacy, and this lesswronger just elides over those little details
Violence is not a realistic way to stop AI.
(Except for drone strikes and starting a nuclear war.)
They treat a Molotov thrown at Sam Altman’s house as if it were thrown directly at Sam himself:
as critics blamed the AI Safety community for the attacker who threw a Molotov cocktail at Sam Altman
This is a pretty blatant misrepresentation of the action which makes it sound much more violent.
They continue on with minimizing right-wing violence:
Even if there are occasional acts of political violence like the murders of Democratic Minnesota legislators or Conservative pundit Charlie Kirk, we don’t generally view them as indicting entire movements, but as the acts of deranged individuals.
Actually, outside of right-wing bubbles (and right-wing sources masking themselves as centrist), lots of people actually do blame Trump and the leaders of entire right wing movement as at fault for a lot of recent political violence. Of course, this is lesswrong, which has a pretty cooked Overton window, so it figures the lesswronger would be wrong about this.
Following that, the lesswronger acknowledges it is kind of questionable and a conflation of terms to label property damage violence, but then press right on ahead with some pretty weak arguments that don’t acknowledge why some people want to make the distinction.
So in conclusion:
- drone strikes that start nuclear wars: legitimate violence that is totally logical and reasonable
- throw a single incendiary at someone’s home that doesn’t hurt anybody or even light the home on fire: illegitimate violence that must be absolutely condemned without exception
- (bonus) recent right-wing violence: lone deranged individuals and not the fault of Trump or anyone like that. Everyone is saying it.
What I found interesting about the post was the total non-discussion about the most discussed source of terrorism in the last few decades, namely Islamic terrorism. AI safety terrs are fucking amateurs compared to the people recruiting Islamic terrorists, who not only have a convincing story to pitch but actually do the work to get people on board and prepared to risk their lives for the goal.
The author gestures vaguely at anti-abortion terrs, totally oblivious to the obvious connection between them and purported anti-AI activists - namely ,that they see any violence justified in the light of the murder of millions of unborn children. If the future of humanity is at stake, any means are justified!
After all, the author states
AI poses unacceptable risks to all of us. This is simply a fact, not a radical or violent ideology.
The onus is on the author to explain why murdering AI company execs is an unacceptable response to the unacceptable risk of AI.
OT: got a job selling tires and I’m really happy to say theres no AI as far as I’ve seen so far. Big relief.
(I get to see all kinds of cars - a Rivan of all things showed up my first day - and I’m learning stuff I can apply to being an RMT. I gotta say I’m pretty content).
Nice to hear you’ve got a job, and good luck!
I’m just shocked the managers/supervisors are praising me honestly (I’m very very hard on myself).
Nice. Good luck at your new job!
Dan Gackle threatens to quit HN over their reluctance to condemn an act of violence towards Sam Altman:
I don’t think I’ve ever seen a thread this bad on Hacker News. The number of commenters justifying violence, or saying they “don’t condone violence” and then doing exactly that, is sickening and makes me want to find something else to do with my life—something as far away from this as I can get. I feel ashamed of this community.
Gackle’s ashamed of people not wanting to protect Altman. Curiously, he doesn’t seem ashamed of openly allowing people with nicknames ending in “88” to post antisemitism, nor of allowing multiple crusty conservatives like John Nagle and Walter Bright to post endorsements of violence against the homeless and queer, nor of allowing posters like
rayinerto port entirely foreign flavors of racism like the Indian caste system into their melting pot of bigotry. This subthread takes him to task for it:Frankly people calling out a post from a billionaire is a good thing. You would have to be terminally detached from reality to not see how all these festering issues - wealth inequality, injustice, cost of living, future employment etc etc - are starting to come to a head which would cause people to feel something - frustrated, angry, wrathful.
The rest of that subthread involves Dan demonstrating that he is, in fact, terminally detached from reality. Anyway, I fully endorse Gackle fucking off and buying a farm. While he’s at it, he should consider following the advice of this reply:
Maybe it’s time to pack it in? I don’t just mean you, I mean that maybe this site has kinda run its course.
Every day, HN users flag into oblivion anything mildly critical of the technological dystopia these tech-bros are trying to manifest. “Politics!” they cry. But Sam Altman comes along with an OpenAI marketing piece dressed up as a condemnation of political violence, and suddenly “politics” are a perfectly acceptable topic. dang has long made it clear whose side he’s on.
Oh, and I hope everyone noted how quickly Sam used this incident as an excuse to place blame on the reporters who published the New Yorker piece that was mildly critical of him:
Words have power too. There was an incendiary article about me a few days ago. Someone said to me yesterday they thought it was coming at a time of great anxiety about AI and that it made things more dangerous for me. I brushed it aside.
That’s a hilarious reaction.
Anyway there’s zip about this incident on LW, which is telling.
edit here’s a very oblique reference https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/igEogGD9TAgAeAM7u/jimrandomh-s-shortform?commentId=zdMRHRqWDcjswhA3i
don’t miss the anarcho-libertarian in the comments
Lesswrong is too centrist-brained to ever even hint at legitimizing (non-state-sanctioned) destruction of property as a means of protest or political action. But according to the orthodox lesswrong lore, Sam Altman’s actions are literally an existential threat to all humanity, so they can’t defend him either. So they are left with silence.
I actually kind of agree with the anarchy-libertarian’s response? It is massively down voted.
This is just elevating your aesthetic preference for what the violence you’re advocating for looks like to a moral principle. The claim that throwing a Molotov cocktail at one guy’s house is counterproductive to the goal of “bombing the datacenters” is a better argument, though one I do not believe.
Bingo. Dear leader Yudkowsky can ask to bomb the data centers, and as long as this action goes through the US political process, that violence is legitimate, regardless of how ill-behaved the US is or it’s political processes degraded from actually functioning as a democracy.
Specifically, a screenshot of a moderator warning him that advocating violence is grounds for a ban there. It would also be grounds for a ban on LW.
That explains why Yud is using twitter so much nowadays. I mean they did ban him right? right?
Someone just made a top post condemning the Molotov but defending and normalizing Eliezer: https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/Sih2sFHEgusDEuxtZ/you-can-t-trust-violence
Ah suddenly when it reaches the class he feels he should be a part of (or is a part of, I don’t know how much money he makes) violence is suddenly a problem.
It’s not easy to be a cop, and that’s basically what you are around here, but thank you for doing it.
…
This NPR article opens with a banger of a line:
In the past few months, AI models have gone from producing hallucinations to becoming effective at finding security flaws in software, according to developers who maintain widely used cyber infrastructure.
The things still fucking hallucinate, it’s not a feature that’s separable from the model.
The fact that Bitcoin bros are so cooked that there’s probably a moderately stable price floor at $69,420 because of people deciding on that number for the memes…
Nice. </obligatory joke>
tldr; one of the MIRI aligned rationalist (Rob Bensinger) complained about how EA actually increased AI-risk long-run by promoting OpenAI and then Anthropic. Scott Alexander responded aggressively, basically saying they are entirely wrong and also they are bad at public communications! Various lesswrongers weigh in, seemingly blind to irony and hypocrisy!
Some highlights from the quotes of the original tweets and the lesswronger comments on them:
-
Scott Alexander tries blaming Eliezer for hyping up AI and thus contributing to OpenAI in the first place. Just a reminder, Scott is one of the AI 2027 authors, he really doesn’t have room to complain about rationalist creating crit-hype.
-
Scott Alexander tries claiming SBF was a unique one off in the rationalist/EA community! (Anthropic’s leadership has been called out on the EA forums and lesswrong for a similar pattern of repeated lying)
-
Rob Bensinger is indirectly trying to claim Eliezer/MIRI has been serious forthright honest commentators on AI theory and policy, as opposed to Open-Phil/EA/Anthropic which have been “strategic” with their public communication, to the point of dishonesty.
-
habryka is apparently on the verge of crashing out? I can’t tell if they are planning on just quitting twitter or quitting their attempts at leadership within the rationalist community. Quitting twitter is probably a good call no matter what.
-
Load of tediously long posts, mired with that long-winded rationalist way of talking, full of rationalist in-group jargon for conversations and conflict resolution
-
Disagreement on whether Ilya Sutskever’s $50 billion dollar startup is going to contribute to AI safety or just continue the race to AGI.
-
Arguments over who is with the EAs vs. Open Philanthropy vs. MIRI!
-
Argument over the definition of gaslighting!
To be clear, I agree with the complaints about EA and Anthropic, I just also think MIRI has its own similar set of problems. So they are both right, all of the rationalists are terrible at pursing their alleged nominal goals of stopping AI Doom.
I did sympathize with one lesswronger’s comment:
More than any other group I’ve been a part of, rationalists love to develop extremely long and complicated social grievances with each other, taking pages and pages of text to articulate. Maybe I’m just too stupid to understand the high level strategic nuances of what’s going on – what are these people even arguing about? The exact flavor of comms presented over the last ten years?
Old Twitter was terrible for people’s souls. I can only imagine what it is like now that the well-meaning professionals are gone and catturd and Wall Street Apes are the leading accounts.
Old Twitter was terrible for people’s souls.
It almost makes me feel sorry for the way the rationalists are still so attached to it. But they literally have two different forums (lesswrong and the EA forum), so staying on twitter is entirely their choice, they have alternatives.
Fun fact! Over the past few years, Eliezer has deliberately cut his lesswrong posting in favor of posting on twitter, apparently (he’s made a few comments about this choice) because lesswrong doesn’t uncritically accept his ideas and nitpicks them more than twitter does. (How bad do you have to be to not even listen to critique on a website that basically loves you and take your controversial foundational premises seriously?)
I’m willing to go out on a limb and say that short-form social media in general (Twitter and imitators, Instagram, TikTok) is essentially a failed set of media. But I’ll concede that’s like cramming a Zyn pouch in my mouth while making fun of a guy chain-smoking Marlboros.
I’ve read speculation that in 30-50 years people will have an attitude towards social media that we have towards cigarettes now.
That would be really nice but that scenario feels pretty optimistic to me on a few points. For one, scientists doing research were able to overcome the lobbying influence and paid think tanks of cigarette companies. I am worried science as a public institution isn’t in good enough shape to do that nowadays. Likewise part of the push back against cigarettes included a variety of mandatory labeling and sin taxes on them, and it would take some pretty major shifts for the political will for that kind of action to be viable. Well maybe these things are viable in the EU, the US is pretty screwed.
The only people I trust as little as I trust the owners of corporate social media are the politicians who have decided to cash in on the moment by “regulating” them. I mean, here in progressive Massachusetts, the state house of representatives just this week passed a bill that, depending on the whims of the Attorney General, would require awful.systems to verify the ages of its users by gathering their government-issued IDs or biometrics. We are, you see, a “public website, online service, online application or mobile application that displays content primarily generated by users and allows users to create, share and view user-generated content with other users”. And so we would have to “implement an age assurance or verification system to determine whether a current or prospective user on the social media platform” is 16 or older. (Or 14 or 15 with parental consent, but your humble mods lack the resources to parse divorce laws in all localities worldwide, sort out issues of disputed guardianship, etc., etc.) The meaning of what “practicable” age verification is supposed to be would depend upon regulations that the Attorney General has yet to write.
So, yeah, as an old-school listserv nerd who had the I am not on Facebook T-shirt 15 years ago, I don’t trust any of these people.
I’m not quite so pessimistic. It’s important to remember that the actual practical purpose of the extant corporate social media* is to convey targeted advertising; i.e. an optimization (possibly the last optimization) on American management of global supply chains. Those supply chains were already starting to be optimized past their breaking point: flooded with dissatisfactory junk, easily spoofed by low-quality sellers, on top of broader externalities besides. And now, they have now been blasted into fine dust by a failed presidency partially funded by the social media and online advertising barons. It may yet be something of a self-correcting problem, albeit having done substantial damage in the meantime.
*Twitter is now a fully dedicated advertising campaign for Elon Musk’s program of white supremacy, with financial returns no object. It’s not quite going according to plan. By this time next decade, the Twitter microblogging permutation of the tech may be thoroughly killed, and if not it’ll be disgustingly cringe. Who do you think you are posting like that, Baby Trump?!?!
The collapse of the current American management of global supply chains isn’t exactly an optimistic expectation, but I guess it beats social media continuing as it is into the future and maybe a better global order will develop in the aftermath.
Haven’t seen any estimates of death toll due to social media but cigarettes is/was pretty staggering (20-40m), way too big to hide - https://www.ucpress.edu/books/golden-holocaust/hardcover - if it’s “only” 50 years to flip the consensus on social media, that would be a faster process, I do hope its possible though. Tobacco execs had the good sense to keep a relatively low profile compared to Zuck and Musk, so that might speed it up.
Bonus race pseudoscience quoted by No77e!
There is a phenomenon in which rationalists sometimes make predictions about the future, and they seem to completely forget their other belief that we’re heading toward a singularity (good or bad) relatively soon. It’s ubiquitous, and it kind of drives me insane. Consider these two tweets:
Richard Ngo @RichardMCNgo: Hypothesis: We’ll look back on mass migration as being worse for Europe than WW 2 was. … high-trust and homogeneous … internal ethno-religious fractures.
Liv Boeree @Liv_Boeree: Would not be surprised if it turns out that everyone outsourcing their writing to LLMs will have a similar or worse effect on IQ as lead piping in the long run
(he shares these tweets as photos, I ain’t working harder to transcribe them or using a chatbot)
No77e is correctly noting the discrepancy between the rationalist obsession with eugenics and the belief in an imminent (or even the next 40 years) technological singularity, but fails to realize that the general problem is the eugenics obsession of rationalists. It is kind of frustrating how close but far they are from realizing the problem.
Also, reminder of the time Eliezer claimed Genesmith’s insane genetic engineering plan was one of the most important projects in the world (after AI obviously): https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/DfrSZaf3JC8vJdbZL/how-to-make-superbabies?commentId=fxnhSv3n4aRjPQDwQ Apparently Eliezer’s plan if we aren’t all doomed by LLMs is to let the genetically engineered geniuses invent friendly AI instead.
-
‘Our goal is AI for all,’ Carney says in Liberal convention speech edit: god knows what this exit tax shit is going to mean for Waterloo
LLM capabilities have not improved at all in terms of producing meaningful science in the last year or two, but their ability to produce meaningless science that looks meaningful has wildly improved. I am concerned that this will present serious problems for the future of science as it becomes impossible to find the actual science in a sea of AI slop being submitted to journals.
https://www.reddit.com/r/Physics/comments/1s19uru/gpt_vs_phd_part_ii_a_viewer_reached_out_with_a/
I’ve seen this story play out in software engineering: people were very impressed when the AI does unexpectedly well in one out of 50 attempts on an easy task, and so people decided to trust it for everything and turn their codebases into disasters. There was no great wave of new high-quality software. Instead, the only real result was that existing software has become far more buggy and insecure.
Now we have people using AI in science and math because it was impressive in random demonstrations of solving math problems. I now have friends asking me why I’m not using AI, and also saying that AI will be better than all mathematicians in 30 years or whatever. Do you really think I refuse to use AI out of ignorance? No, I know too much about it! I have seen the same story play out in software engineering, and what makes this any different?
“Scientists invented a fake disease. AI told people it was real”
https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-026-01100-y
But if, in the past 18 months, you typed those symptoms into a range of popular chatbots and asked what was wrong with you, you might have got an odd answer: bixonimania.
The condition doesn’t appear in the standard medical literature — because it doesn’t exist. It’s the invention of a team led by Almira Osmanovic Thunström, a medical researcher at the University of Gothenburg, Sweden, who dreamt up the skin condition and then uploaded two fake studies about it to a preprint server in early 2024. Osmanovic Thunström carried out this unusual experiment to test whether large language models (LLMs) would swallow the misinformation and then spit it out as reputable health advice. “I wanted to see if I can create a medical condition that did not exist in the database,” she says.
The problem was that the experiment worked too well. Within weeks of her uploading information about the condition, attributed to a fictional author, major artificial-intelligence systems began repeating the invented condition as if it were real.
This actually gives me hope that we can poison the datasets pertaining to any sufficiently narrow technical topic.
“AI HAS SOLVED THE SCIENCE-GENERATION CRISIS”
It can do trillions of calculations per second. All of them wrong.
The replausibility crisis.
Claude Mythos… I’m already sick of hearing about it. The self-imposed critihype is insane.
A friend just pointed out that Anthropic are making all this big noise about having an AI that is “too good” at finding bugs and security problems 1 week after the source code for one of their flagship products was leaked to the public and was found to be riddled with security holes… Why would they not use it themselves?
Same as the
vague markdown filesskills that are supposedly going to make all SaaS redundant and finally kill off all the COBOL running on mainframes that checks notes IBM have spent hundreds of thousands of man hours trying to kill over the last 3-4 decadesHonestly fuck this shit. Bunch of absolute clowns 🤡 🤡 🤡
So, they are planning to use an ai to fix the sec bugs that their ai generates? Good hussle, if a bit obvious.
The fuck is Mythos?
Is it their next model that tbey swear isn’t vaporware but no! It is too dangerous to release into the world because it’ll find too much insecure code or whatever.
Ia ia Claude! Ph’nglui mglw’nafh Claude Anthr’lyeh wgah’nagl fhtagn! Ia! Ia!
Okay but like is it materially different than whatever the current Claude thing is or did they just pump the size of the matrix?
Probably a markdown file telling it “you are a l33t h4x0r”
Okay but that’s already in Claude
I still laugh every time I see that this is what qualifies as proper “tuning” and “security controls” for these things.
I had hoped that with the whole “agent” push that we would start seeing more sane usage, like having AI be a fuzzy logic step in a chain of formal logic and existing deterministic tools, but the cult still has people treating them like reliable second brains. They’re used as the baseline fucking orchestrator rather than anywhere they might make a bit of sense.
I had hoped that with the whole “agent” push that we would start seeing more sane usage, like having AI be a fuzzy logic step in a chain of formal logic and existing deterministic tools
I think this is the best you can expect out of LLMs, and the relatively more successful “agentic” AI efforts are probably doing exactly this, but their relative success is serving as hype fuel for the more impossible promises of LLMs. Also, if you have formal logic and deterministic tools wrapping and sanity checking the LLM bits… I think the value add of evaporating rivers and firing up jet turbines to train and serve “cutting edge” models that only screw up 1% of the time isn’t there because you can run a open weight model 1/100th the size that screws up 10% of the time instead. (Note one important detail: training costs go up quadratically with model size, so a 100x size model is 10,000x training compute.) I think the frontier LLM companies should have pivoted to prioritizing smaller size, greater efficiency, and actually sustainable business practices 4 years ago. At the very latest, 2 years ago, with the release of 4o OpenAI should have realized pushing up model size was the wrong direction (as they should have realized training Chain-of-Thought was not going to be the magic bullet).
And to be clear I still think this is really generous to the use case of smaller LMs.
they added more leetspeak and changed the vm they run it on to kali linux for extra h4xx0r power
Anthropic’s latest model that they haven’t released to the public yet since they’re worried its gonna fuck up cybersecurity this thread goes over it a bit
XCancel link for those of us sick of being badgered to sign up/in
On a more productive note, this feels likely to be tied in with the usual issues of AI sycophancy re: false positive rate. If you ask the model to tell you about security vulnerabilities, it’s never going to tell you there aren’t any, any more than existing scanners will. When I worked for F5 it was not uncommon to have to go down a list of vulnerabilities that someone’s scanner turned out and figure out whether they were actually something that needed mitigation that could be applied on our box, something that needed to be configured somewhere else in the network (usually on their actual servers) or (most commonly) a false positive, e.g. “your software version would be vulnerable here, which is why it flagged, but you don’t have the relevant module activated and if an attacker is able to modify your system to enable it you’re already compromised to a far greater degree than this would allow.” That was with existing tools that weren’t trying to match a pattern and complete a prompt.* Given that we’ve seen the shitshow that is Claude Code I think it’s pretty clear they’re getting high on their own supply and this announcement ought be catnip for black hats.
Wow, sounds like they just automated “shitty infosec teams that only forward scanner output without evaluating it” out of a job. Holy shit they were right that AI was coming for jobs!
True. I will say that the shitty infosec teams are probably being hit less hard than the SMEs they offloaded their jobs onto, because from their perspective it doesn’t actually matter whether it’s f5 support engineer or a chatbot that tells them the answer; either way they’ve successfully offloaded the task of validating security onto another entity that can make up for their shortcomings with a combination of accuracy and authority. Nobody is going to get fired for not fixing a bug that the vendor SME told them wasn’t actually an issue for them, effectively. And when the org has been pushing AI as hard as so many of them have its pretty easy to throw the chatbot under the same bus and expect the bus to stop instead.
On a more productive note, this feels likely to be tied in with the usual issues of AI sycophancy re: false positive rate.
I suspect this is the real limit. Claude Mythos might find real vulnerabilities, but if they are buried among loads of false positives it won’t be that useful to black or white hat hackers and the endless tide of slop PRs and bug reports will keep coming.
I tried looking through Anthropic’s “preview” for a description of the false positive rate… they sort of beat around the bush as to how many false positives they had to sort out to find the real vulnerabilities they reported (even obliquely addressing the issue was better than I expected but still well short of the standard for a good industry-standard security report from what I understand).
They’ve got one class of bugs they can apparently verify efficiently?
Memory safety violations are particularly easy to verify. Tools like Address Sanitizer perfectly separate real bugs from hallucinations; as a result, when we tested Opus 4.6 and sent Firefox 112 bugs, every single one was confirmed to be a true positive.
It’s not clear from their preview if Claude was able to automatically use Address Sanitizer or not? Also not clear to me (I’ve programmed with Python for the past ten years and haven’t touched C since my undergraduate days), maybe someone could explain, how likely is it that these bugs are actually exploitable and/or show up for users?
Moving on…
This process means that we don’t flood maintainers with an unmanageable amount of new work—but the length of this process also means that fewer than 1% of the potential vulnerabilities we’ve discovered so far have been fully patched by their maintainers.
So its good they aren’t just flooding maintainers with slop (and it means if they do publicly release mythos maintainers will get flooded with slop bug fixes), but… this makes me expect they have a really high false positive rate (especially if you rule minor code issues that don’t actually cause bugs or vulnerabilities as false positives).
Work wants to add that new whiz-bang agentic AI into a scheduling service that I have been tasked with building, but in the dumbest way possible kind of similar to the Jet’s text-a-pizza-order thing that worked like shit. I need to find an entirely new profession, everyone in software now is fucking deranged.
I need to find an entirely new profession, everyone in software now is fucking deranged.
Mood
It’s bad for me too.
I’m trying to hang in there until I get some healthcare stuff taken care of over the next year or two but it is getting increasingly difficult. Most of the the good people at my job have been driven out, quit, or been poached by other (AI) companies.
By this point a majority of the programmers at my job (or at least the one’s most active on the mailing lists) are LLM true believers who think that the end times are near. My management chain has explicitly said that LLM programming is required, and that a subsequent increase in “productivity” is expected with it. My department got renamed to something with “AI” in the name. I constantly field questions from people who want me to read a screen full of LLM nonsense, or who push back when I tell them something claiming that the chatbot said differently.
There’s always some frantic push to adopt “MCP” or “Skills” or whatever the next fad will be without any guidance as to how or why. If I ignore this I get nastygrams from my manager.
And at my last doctor visit I had elevated blood pressure :)
and that a subsequent increase in “productivity” is expected with it.
Oh no… they def will blame the users before blaming the faulty tools. Hope you will not be the one who gets blamed as a wrecker or something when the eventual increase isn’t there (or other metrics fall off a cliff).
Up next, when the first agent fails, implement an agent that checks the other agent. Both of these need agents to check for malicious inputs of course. And translation agents.
Starting this Stubsack off, Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps have threatened to blow up OpenAI’s Stargate datacentre in Abu Dhabi.
They’ve already bombed commercial data centres before, so I’m inclined to believe this isn’t an empty threat.
Waiting for Yud to provide his whole-chested support for IRGC any second
I assign a relatively low probability, non-zero but not much more than 5%, maybe a solid 5.5%, that Yud goes even beyond that and implies that he is the 12th imam emerging from occultation
IRGC doing their part to Halt AI. Donate to them now!
aside from everything else, as posted by ed zitron previously i doubt that anything is really getting built there
Interesting, got a link?
there’s been a claim of 200ish GW of new datacenters announced but it’s only something like 5GW being built and only a fraction of that is actually finished or powered on. this mostly goes for american ai dcs, which are 3/4 of them all. not sure if it holds for emirates, but it would completely not surprise me if it’s the case there also https://www.wheresyoured.at/the-ai-industry-is-lying-to-you/#how-much-actual-data-center-capacity-came-online-in-2025-my-estimate-3gw-of-it-load
Except it is a problem, man! As I covered in this week’s free newsletter [link above], I estimate that only around 3GW of actual IT load (so around 3.9GW of power) came online last year, and as Sightline reported, only 5GW of data center construction is actually in progress globally at this time, despite somewhere between 190GW and 240GW supposedly being in progress. In reality, data centers take forever to build (and obtaining the power even longer than that), but nobody needs to harsh their flow by looking into what’s actually happening.
https://www.wheresyoured.at/premium-how-much-of-the-ai-bubble-is-real/ (paywalled) linked claim for 190GW https://www.sightlineclimate.com/research/data-center-outlook linked claim for 240GW https://paulkedrosky.com/chart-of-the-day-data-center-buildout-slowed-sharply/
Thanks for the sources I’ll come back after I do some reading!
New Yorker article on Sam Altman dropped. Aaron Swartz apparently called him a sociopath. The article itself also had wat looked like an animated AI generated image of Altman so here is the archive.is link (if you can get the latter to load, I was having troubles).
“New interviews and closely guarded documents shed light on the persistent doubts about the head of OpenAI.”
My CEO who is a known hype-man is a massive liar? shock horror
seriously, anyone who listens to Scam Altman these days is an idiot
Man, this one is a weird read. On one hand I think they’re entirely too credulous of the “AI Future” narrative at the heart of all of this. Especially in the opening they don’t highlight how the industry is increasingly facing criticism and questions about the bubble, and only pay lip service to how ridiculous all the existential risk AI safety talk sounds (should be is). And they don’t spend any ink discussing the actual problems with this technology that those concerns and that narrative help sweep under the rug. For all that they criticize and question Saltman himself this is still, imo, standard industry critihype and I’m deeply frustrated to see this still get the platform it does.
But at the same time, I do think that it’s easy to lose sight of the rich variety of greedy assholes and sheltered narcissists that thrive at this level of wealth and power. Like, I wholly believe that Altman is less of a freak than some of his contemporaries while still being an absolute goddamn snake, and I hope that this is part of a sea change in how these people get talked about on a broader level, though I kinda doubt it.
I aired some Reviewer #2 grievances in the bsky comments:
https://bsky.app/profile/ronanfarrow.bsky.social/post/3mitapp7j2s2c
“Kalanick now runs a robotics startup; in his free time, he said recently, he uses OpenAI’s ChatGPT “to get to the edge of what’s known in quantum physics.””
As a physicist, I have never pressed F to doubt harder.
“In 2022, researchers at a pharmaceutical company tested whether a drug-discovery model could be used to find new toxins; within a few hours, it had suggested forty thousand deadly chemical-warfare agents.” To the best of my knowledge, these suggestions were never evaluated by any other researchers.
(The original paper was published as a “comment”: https://www.nature.com/articles/s42256-022-00465-9)
Similar claims of AI-facilitated discoveries have turned out to be overblown in other fields.
https://pubs.acs.org/doi/pdf/10.1021/acs.chemmater.4c00643
“In a 2025 study, ChatGPT passed the test more reliably than actual humans did.”
If this is referring to Jones and Bergen’s “Large Language Models Pass the Turing Test”, that’s a preprint (arXiv:2503.23674) that has yet to pass peer review over a year after its posting.
“A classic hypothetical scenario in alignment research involves a contest of wills between a human and a high-powered A.I. In such a contest, researchers usually argue, the A.I. would surely win”
Which researchers?
(Hint: Eliezer Yudkowsky is not a researcher.)
AI: “I will convince you to let me out of this box”
Humanity (wringing hands): “Oh, where is our savior? Who will stand fast in the face of all entreaties?”
Bartleby the Scrivener: hello
“…a hub of the effective-altruism movement whose commitments included supporting the distribution of mosquito nets to the global poor.”
Phrasing like this subtly underplays how the (to put it briefly) weird people were part of EA all along.
https://repository.uantwerpen.be/docman/irua/371b9dmotoM74
“In late 2022, four computer scientists published a paper motivated in part by concerns about “deceptive alignment,” … one of several A.I. scenarios that sound like science fiction—but, under certain experimental conditions, it’s already happening.”
Barrett et al.'s arXiv:2206.08966? AFAIK, that was never peer-reviewed either; “posted” is not the same as “published”. And claims in this area are rife with criti-hype:
https://pivot-to-ai.com/2025/09/18/openai-fights-the-evil-scheming-ai-which-doesnt-exist-yet/
Oh, right, the “Future of Life Institute”. Pepperidge Farm remembers:
“In January 2023, Swedish magazine Expo reported that the FLI had offered a grant of $100,000 to a foundation set up by Nya Dagbladet, a Swedish far-right online newspaper.”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Future_of_Life_Institute#Activism
“Tegmark also rejected any suggestion that nepotism could have played a part in the grant offer being made, given that his brother, Swedish journalist Per Shapiro … has written articles for the site in the past.”
https://www.vice.com/en/article/future-of-life-institute-max-tegmark-elon-musk/
Kalanick now runs a robotics startup; in his free time, he said recently, he uses OpenAI’s ChatGPT “to get to the edge of what’s known in quantum physics.
When I read that I assumed they included it for color to make him sound insane.
@fullsquare She also did a video about this in particular! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TMoz3gSXBcY
Great as always
I see what you’re saying, but I think that’s a bit much to expect from a relatively mainstream and (I hate to say it, but it applies) bourgeois publication like the New Yorker. Their editorial line allows them to raise controversy in one dimension (in this case, the particulars of Sam Altman’s character) but not multiple dimensions simultaneously (hey, this guy sucks AND his tech sucks AND you’re gonna lose money). And there’s a lag-time factor, too; seems like Farrow and Marantz were working on this story for at least the latter half of last year. By the time some of the dubious economics such as the bad data-center deals and rampant circular financing were clear, this piece probably would’ve been deep into fact-checking and unlikely to change much in substance.
We here are on the leading edge of this stuff, not that that’s any great advantage! I wouldn’t expect an outlet like New Yorker to be publishing anything like “the dashed expectations of AI” until maybe this time next year. And even then, it might still have a personalist bent.
Yeah, I intentionally only mentioned the start of the article and the Swartz bit because I didn’t want to lead with what I thought of it all, and was curious what others thought. (And I had not finished it yet because it is a bit long).
I was struck with the notion how many of them are all true AGI believers (which as you said the author took at face value) or rich greedy assholes (like you said), and how we, the people of the sneer, are right that you simply can’t work with these people. Like I feel more validated in the idea that EA is not the right way.
Another detail I noticed, nobody mentioned deepseek, again.
I hadn’t even thought about the deepseek angle. For all that everyone loved fear mongering about them for a while there and for all that their apparent desire for actual efficiency improvements was a welcome development in the hyper scaling discussion they don’t seem to get referenced much anymore.
:surprised-pikachu:
It’s a good blog series.
But just to point it out… note the author still buys the AI hype too much. This post is criticizing Microsoft for missing out because OpenAI made that $300 billion deal with Oracle (with the assumption that Microsoft could have a similar amount of revenue from OpenAI instead). Except neither OpenAI nor Oracle has the money or means to carry out that deal, Oracle is struggling to raise the capital to fulfill their end and an analysis of time to bring data centers online suggest they can’t meet their target goals even with the money, and OpenAI doesn’t have the money to pay for their end, the revenue just isn’t coming in unless they somehow become more ubiquitous and lucrative than the entire market for, for example, all streaming services put together (thanks to Ed Zitron for that fun comparison).
if even half of this is true, it’s really fucking bad lol
The only thing I can personally confirm is the JIT permissions thing. I didn’t work in the Core Azure stuff so I can’t verify the rest, but none of it is unbelievable…
I can’t validate any of the internal stuff, but the attitude of layering manual solutions and mitigation scripts on top of bad design choices and praying you could keep building the next bit of the bridge as the last one collapsed underneath you would explain a lot of experiences I had supporting systems running on Azure. The level of weird “Azure just does that sometimes” cases and the lack of ability for their support to actually provide insight was incredibly frustrating. I think I probably ended up providing a couple of automatic recovery scripts for people to use inside their F5 guests because we never could find an actual explanation for the errors they were getting, and the node issues they describe could have explained the bursts of Azure cases that would come in some days.
My workplace doesn’t have much in terms of workloads running in Azure, but even just interacting mostly with Entra, Exchange Online, SSO, and some automated account provisioning: It is insane just how many rules and practices have built up around the unreliabilty and non-reproducable but still frequently occurring issues.
Boss warned me that licensing can take up to 48 hours to take effect in his experience. But I’d been living in it for a week and changes were effectively immediate. Until they just weren’t.
One of our processes regular took an hour for Azure to complete its part. It was this way for years. Suddenly it started sporadically taking up to four hours with no discernable pattern, so now we set the following steps to run four hours later.
Audit logs that don’t actually show you what you’re looking for, and instead show impossible situations like an automated Microsoft process granting a user their Office license a full month after they’d already had it. But the logs don’t show the initial license assignment, even though they’ve been using that functionality this whole time and the license has shown as applied to them the whole time.
And more cases of completely missing basic fucking functionality than I could ever fucking recall.
Why the fuck can’t I discern between a user who has a license assigned directly and through a group, and a user who just has the license through the group only? Through the API it is impossible. In the web UI, it indicates the multiple sources of the license correctly. But only most of the time. Sometimes it displays the info wrong.
Arg. Sorry for the rant. Azure has been a pain in my ass since I first started studying certs for it.
In 2024 Ozy Brennan was indignant about Nonlinear Fund, the “incubator of AI-safety meta-charities” which lived as global nomads, hired a live-in personal assistant, asked her to smuggle drugs across borders for them, let a kind-of-colleague take her to bed, then did not pay her regularly and in full.
The correct number of times for the word “yachting” to occur in a description of an effective altruist job is zero. I might make an exception if it’s prefaced with “convincing people to donate to effective charities instead of spending money on.”
Trace popped up in the comments:
Inasmuch as EA follows your preferences, I suspect it will either fail as a subculture or deserve to fail. You present a vision of a subculture with little room for grace or goodwill, a space where everyone is constantly evaluating each other and trying to decide: are you worthy to stand in our presence? Do you belong in our hallowed, select group? Which skeletons are in your closet? Where are your character flaws? What should we know, what should we see, that allows us to exclude you?
Ozy stands with us on this one buddy.
i love seeing tracing pop up! a true heel to toe bootlicker incapable of seeing himself as anything but the MOST independent thinker
He really is insufferable, isn’t he?
Which skeletons are in your closet?
I’m sure you already have lists of those and are ready to publish them Trace.
a space where everyone is constantly evaluating each other and trying to decide: are you worthy to stand in our presence? Do you belong in our hallowed, select group?
It’s not that already?
That part of Trace’s response was odd because one of Brennan’s themes was “we should have less cults of personality and more peers working together.” That seems naive but at least Brennan agrees that cults of personality are bad and Nonlinear Fund needed to be fired into the sun.
