But if I don't obsessively optimize my career in ways that prevent me from making meaningful human connections, how am I supposed to keep up with the relentless march of AI??? Thank God I have AI to help pick up the slack.

I have incredibly vague memories of the early days of vox where I was impressed at the form they used? Like, I seem to remember them really embracing hypertext and linking to central pieces that provided some more context on the immediate story than would have been reasonable to include in the main article. Like, if you wanted a brief summary of how the situation in Libya got to the point where the breaking news hit it there was a way to get that information easily right there, linked in the article.

Of course, by now it seems like everyone has gotten far more competent at that and the editorial policies and ideologies behind Klein's work have exposed themselves as deeply odious. There may have been a point at which he had one single good idea, but then that idea was completely tangential to the thing he actually wanted to do.

I wouldn't put a multiplier on them, except for 1.2x to 1.25x.

I'm pretty sure it's still a multiplier if you're not using whole numbers.

I'd be curious to see how they defined "harmful" in their test, since it looks like Claude code's technically-not-yolo mode is looking for "actions that are irreversible, destructive, or targeted outside of your environment" which covers a lot of normal actions, especially depending on how you define which resources are in "your environment".

And yes, I'm sure that the fact that the flow of operations they're outline will massively increase the number of times that the system automatically retries things, this increasing token usage, is going to be fully accounted for when they review the financials on how many tokens people are paying for.

If you're putting yourself in a situation where your business decisions, political ideology, or general worldview will be negatively impacted by the seeding of a pseudorandom number generator I would recommend you rethink your life rather than argue with the people who set the seed.

Because passing off basic security configuration to a system that basically ensures that even if it is without major errors it's basically impossible to understand and follow is definitely not a bad idea, especially if you're going to try and operate this for more than a couple of weeks or in on infrastructure that isn't perfectly isolated and specific to this app.

My general approach telegraphs a receptiveness to “sober” forms of argument, an interest in counterintuitive strategic thinking, a distaste for wild speculation, an aversion to nakedly ideological perspectives, and a sense that the past is important for understanding the future. My students probably make some effort (implicit or explicit) to speak in ways that respond to this.

I'm going to leave this part of the author's self-description here and resist the urge to comment on it.

Perspective #6: AI will not go rogue because AI does not have, and is likely incapable of having, desires.

This one I found interesting largely because it suggests an inability on the writer's part to really understand point 4, despite featuring one of the better sneers on the subject ("as if Ford made a car with faulty brakes and then tried to blame this on 'rogue cars.'"). Maybe I'm overstating something here, but the way I see it the difference between the rogue AI and faulty AI scenarios aren't really in the distinct events of the scenario. Faulty AI could absolutely do as much damage as "rogue" AI if it was plugged into all the systems that would be necessary to, say, liquidate humanity and pull the iron from their blood. The difference is entirely in framing and responsibility. We should ask questions now about how these systems are used, what their limitations are, and how we deal with that. Instead, the Rogue AI people presuppose that we ignore all of those questions and opportunities to mitigate harm that these faulty systems can do and skip straight to the part where they have universal and immediate power over everything, and then use the idea that the AI went rogue and has agency to avoid how obviously bad of a decision this would be. The fact that this is also the part where the AI companies make a fucktillion dollars and finally show them, show them all, muhuhahaha is, I'm sure, irrelevant to their sober analysis.

So the argument is that the hypothetical future generations that longtermists value might be too dumb to care about because of black and brown people reproducing miscegenation "dysgenic pressures". But if we assume, as they appear to, that longtermists should be taken seriously rather than pointed at and mocked, then the math involved would basically necessitate that "certain" people alive today should also merit effectively zero moral consideration. Something tells me that they get real conceptual real fast and start avoiding the shut up and multiply people hard.

Happy birthday, my friend! Glad to hear that the steakhouse delivered.

the woman herself shows up in the substack comments with the most pitiful display of "I'm just a smol self-taught bean why are you being so mean to me?"

Erika rightly responds by calling out Aella's own attitude towards the people who know how to apply the level of rigor to the data that she (apparently admittedly?) doesn't. Like, you can't simultaneously be this dismissive of the norms and processes of the scientific establishment and also claim ignorance and inability when your inability or refusal to follow those norms leads you to crap conclusions.

The episode dropped and I'm like 2/3 in and have already passed my previous record for the number of times I've had to pause an episode of OS to make a little angry noise.

There's also something to be said of the inherent narcissism of the influencer economy? Like, I prefer my video essayists to have more of a burned-out academic vibe so CJ has been adjacent to but not on my radar. That being said, having a very distinct aesthetic is pretty common in the space because having a hook is what brings in eyeballs and thus patreon subs or superchats or whatever else turns that into an actual career. I would sooner assume he's using a similar strategy to manipulate viewers into clicking his face rather than that he's actively following the PUA playbook.

"In what other profession do you need panic buttons?"

I'm just gonna look awkwardly at bank tellers, convenience store clerks, and so many other front-line customer service jobs that either have or would greatly benefit from a panic button to deal with dangerous customer interactions or outright robbery.

Not gonna lie, "enforcing the line between ketchup and tomato sauce" isn't the sort of thing I'd expect the government to be into, but I guess I'm not mad about it?

Okay but now I need to once again do a brief rant about the framing of that initial post.

the silicon valley technofascists are the definition of good times breed weak men

You're not wrong about these guys being both morally reprehensible and also deeply pathetic. Please don't take this as any kind of defense on their behalf.

However, the whole "good times breed weak men" meme is itself fascist propaganda about decadence breeding degeneracy originally written by a mediocre science fiction author and has never been a serious theory of History. It's rooted in the same kind of masculinity-through-violence-as-primary-virtue that leads to those dreams of conquest. I sympathize with the desire to show how pathetic these people are by their own standards but it's also critical to not reify the standards themselves in the process.

And I'm sure he's sent several notices explicitly declaring that lack of contract between them that a judge evaluating the lien would be interested in.

Note that the image here isn't from the AI project, it's from actual Doom. Their own screenshots have weird glitches including a hit splat that looks like a butt in the image I've seen closest to this one.

And when they say they've "run the game" they do not mean that there was a playable version that was publicly compared to the original. Rather they released short video clips of alleged gameplay and had their evaluators try to identify if they were from the AI recreation or from actual Doom.

Even by the abysmal standards of generative AI projects this is a hell of a grift.

Some may find her "cringe" but she's doing critical work in stopping the sites you use being DDOSed by AI scrapers.

NANDA claims that agentic AI — or the thing of that name that they’re selling — will definitely learn real good without training completely afresh.

Given their web3 roots, I feel like we should point out that blockchain storage systems are famously cheap and efficient to update and modify, so this claim actually seems perfectly reasonable to me /s.

Anyone who said this about their product would almost certainly by lying, but these guys are extra lying.

So did anyone else read the terrible Star wars novel "Darksaber" about the Hutts hiring one of the architects of the death star to build their own in order to hold planets hostage or something, and while the new Republic is trying to rally the gang to go do what they do to death stars the Hutts are so busy cutting corners and embezzling that when they go to turn the thing on for the first time it just fucking explodes?

I don't know why that's coming to mind right now.