This is the best thing Jane Wickline has done. I worried about whether she was on the bubble because she's so situational (I think that's a good thing), but clearly she's got staying power.
I know it’s a little OT, but I keep seeing the same misquotation all over the place. Right at the beginning Michael Che refers to the claim that “there’s a 10% chance that AI could wipe out humanity within 10 years.”
But that isn’t what the often-misquoted current and former Anthropic employees said. They said it was a 10% chance of it happening by the end of the current decade [0], i.e. by 2030, not 2036.
Unfortunately, this question was never asked by any news organization or of Coxon as he ran to the press. People who would usually ask to "see the work" never did because it comfortably confirmed their biases.
Specifically, I have no idea what the research says, or even if it exists, I wish we had a system to figure that out instead of exciting Twitter "whistleblower" threads.
You are wrong. The confusion arises because Coxon said “within the decade” with no associated probability and Hubinger said “within the next decade” at 10%.
I generally don't think SNL is very funny but I think it's quite socially healthy that they make fun of the political and economic elites. I wonder if we mapped out their targets if there would be any glaring omissions that would stand out.
This video didn't make me laugh but I appreciate the flexing of the first amendment. They should continue with other AI-related figures.
I disagree there are so many other ways to be funny than making fun of someone's stuttering. We shouldn't be bullying people delivering trillions of dollars of value to society.
That is literally bullying. especially when those insecurities are something that can not be fixed. You can't excuse bullying because "it's for humor." It's cruel.
I think Dario will be fine. I don't have much sympathy.
And yes, it is indeed because he's a billionaire actively shaping a worse society. Not because it's okay to make fun of impediments when it's on rich people.
Hey how about we go back to LLM/AI being a simple knowledge request service? You have a model trained on data, you request a text or media response from that knowledge model.
No agents. And if someone loops the response into an agent, well, then they are legally liable for personally doing that.
In reality, it is a big scam to trick the public into thinking AI is dangerous and needs to be regulated. Then the government can limit it so only the preferred companies can continue to develop it.
It's because both frontier companies are worried about plateauing and there's no barrier to competition. They both have upcoming IPOs, too.
To be fair, I think most of this is sci-fi brain rot, but the fact that 2 trillion-dollar companies supposedly have RSI as their #1 priority by a long shot is concerning to me
I don't think it such a bad idea that the Big Ai labs put money into a fund for their negligence, but that should not relieve them of criminal liabilities
my consternation is that they likely have sufficient money to avoid consequences, like the sacks and the opioid epidemic, two-tier justice system at it's finest...
When Dario talks to himself sotto voce and then answers himself in a raspy voice, Gollum-like, made me lose it. I once encountered a severely cognitively deficient individual on the bus who calmed himself in the exact same fashion. It's almost a perfectly succinct psychological snapshot of the character they're trying to create.
Something about the lack of socialization leads tech people into these off-putting ego cults.
While it's not exactly the traditional Randian objectivism you're alluding to, effective altruism adds an extra step: it ostensibly helps people. But, ultimately, it's a distinction without difference: no one escapes the dialectic. Individuals, especially ones cloistered off from the world, are not good arbiters of what will make the world better, or of understanding the higher-order effects of their actions.
What are they doing now to stop their harms? They're not bound to commit as much harm as possible just because government hasn't told them to knock it off, they can just, not.
I think the Ayn Rand thing is more about "the I'm getting mine, f everyone else". However the next 5-10 years shake out, if you're ultra rich today you'll almost definitely be ultra rich in 10 years. Probably ultra-richer. Ayn Rand wasn't just about free markets, she was about individualism over collectivism. Don't worry about how your actions will effect society, worry about what's best for yourself and society will work itself out.
"Ayn Rand" unfortunately seems to have become shorthand on HN for "politics I disagree with". I wonder how long it's going to be until I see somebody here describes the CCP as "Randian".
Sorry Dario is the exact opposite of Ayn Rand, he wants the government to manage his industry cause he thinks it will be good for him. More likely all his competitors are more libertarian like Ayn Rand writes about
Copyright might be part of this; I haven’t thought that through. But this restriction is about whose turf they’re trying to push their product on. SNL has to be pushed through a different distributor in different regions.
Hard to comprehend how we've gone from Norm MacDonald being so relentlessly bold he was fired, to this sterility, in 30 years.
Is it, though?
Wouldn't it be more strange if the former didn't eventually lead to the latter?
But that isn’t what the often-misquoted current and former Anthropic employees said. They said it was a 10% chance of it happening by the end of the current decade [0], i.e. by 2030, not 2036.
0: https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2026/sep/09/anthropic...
Specifically, I have no idea what the research says, or even if it exists, I wish we had a system to figure that out instead of exciting Twitter "whistleblower" threads.
This video didn't make me laugh but I appreciate the flexing of the first amendment. They should continue with other AI-related figures.
And yes, it is indeed because he's a billionaire actively shaping a worse society. Not because it's okay to make fun of impediments when it's on rich people.
No agents. And if someone loops the response into an agent, well, then they are legally liable for personally doing that.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7vN_PEmeKb0
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g4Gh_IcK8UM
It's because both frontier companies are worried about plateauing and there's no barrier to competition. They both have upcoming IPOs, too.
Lawfare Media recently, actually proposed a mutualize insurance system for Ai
https://www.lawfaremedia.org/article/bootstrapping-frontier-...
I don't think it such a bad idea that the Big Ai labs put money into a fund for their negligence, but that should not relieve them of criminal liabilities
my consternation is that they likely have sufficient money to avoid consequences, like the sacks and the opioid epidemic, two-tier justice system at it's finest...
While it's not exactly the traditional Randian objectivism you're alluding to, effective altruism adds an extra step: it ostensibly helps people. But, ultimately, it's a distinction without difference: no one escapes the dialectic. Individuals, especially ones cloistered off from the world, are not good arbiters of what will make the world better, or of understanding the higher-order effects of their actions.
What are they doing now to stop their harms? They're not bound to commit as much harm as possible just because government hasn't told them to knock it off, they can just, not.
If I may... a drEAk meme
(⌐_⌐)ノ Empathy
(•ᴗ•)つ Apathy
Copyright is another threat to humanity.