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 - both for starting this, and for covering the previous week. We should get a bot to automate this…)

    • scruiser@awful.systems
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      10
      ·
      10 days ago

      One of the defenses I see of LLMs on place like /r/singularity (although recently /r/singularity has started wising up and the committed true believers have shifted to /r/accelerate), is that they are going to cure cancer or some other incredibly valuable thing, conflating AI, ML in general, DNN, vs. LLMs specifically. Technology like AlphaFold was a lot more on the “cure cancer” track (although there is still a huge gap between better protein folding predictions and successful drug discovery) than anything LLM related… this is sad.

      • samvines@awful.systems
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        9
        ·
        10 days ago

        This has always been a huge red herring. Llms are built on top of the transformer architecture which does text autocomplete (and yes we can combine text embeddings with other inputs like images). They have some interesting properties where they seem to be able to do text autocomplete in a bunch of different scenarios that they weren’t explicitly trained for, but they were never designed for precise dna analysis. It is their architecture that prevents them from other long horizon tasks like playing chess and the way that they represent text is why they can never count the letters in strawberry (most have this specific question hard-coded in their training data now).

        Anyone who believes that LLMs are going to solve cancer either has no idea how they work or has been one-shotted from talking to Claudia

        • BioMan@awful.systems
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          10
          ·
          10 days ago

          I am continually amused at people not quite understanding what AlphaFold is actually doing, too.

          Yes, a bunch of its performance comes from it learning rules about how proteins fold. But not a majority of its performance. MOST of its performance is it effectively acting as a translator of what evolution knows about protein folding into a form we can understand.

          A key part of the system is not just cooking the sequence into a structure. A system running alphafold has a database of terabytes of curated sequence information from all over the tree of life. You put in the sequence you care about, and it first searches that database for anything with homology, and builds a “covariation matrix” - wherever theres anything with even vague sequence relatedness, build a matrix of every position in your sequence and the correlation between variation at position X and variation at position Y. This covariation matrix represents implicit information from the evolutionary process about what parts of a sequence are functionally connected to each other, which has a correlation to positional information, and these correlations are in turn learned by the ML system.

          You put in de novo designed proteins or orphan proteins without homologs in the curated dataset and performance does not go away, but it drops precipitously. A bunch of what is going on is finding an evolutionary signal, and translating that evolutionary signal into structural information. So still, evolution knows much much more about protein folding than we do or any machine does, and once again a ML system is revealed to essentially be an information channel that takes in information from an interesting source on one end and turns it into a different form of information on the other.

    • samvines@awful.systems
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      11 days ago

      Those things are barely related, no wonder the staff voted with their feet. It would be a bit like taking a team of seasoned architects who design amazing skyscrapers and telling them they have to spend all their time on low density suburban houses from now on… Come on guys it’s still architecture. Where are you going?

      • Architeuthis@awful.systems
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        10 days ago

        no wonder the staff voted with their feet

        Rather than rebelling against google, it seems like they where just poached by anthropic a short while before the project shut down:

        [Alphahold VP and nobel winner] Jumper announced in June that he was leaving DeepMind to join Anthropic. A couple of his colleagues jumped ship to Anthropic, as well. DeepMind has confirmed to the Times that it also moved staff members internally to Gemini-focused projects. Other former staff members were reassigned to Alphabet’s drug-discovery company Isomorphic Labs, which is a DeepMind spin-off.

        • samvines@awful.systems
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          6
          ·
          10 days ago

          Oh… Well that’s disappointing.

          I was an academic in computer science in the last 10 years or so (keeping it vague to avoid doxxing myself) and it has been so depressing seeing so many of my colleagues selling out to OpenAI, Anthropic, Meta and even Google (for some reason the latter often gets a reputational free pass because people associate them with the golden days of big tech 10+ years ago)

          • BioMan@awful.systems
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            9
            ·
            10 days ago

            I am actually in the middle of both trying to advance my career and a project about information theory in evolutionary biology making a bunch of explicit parallels to machine learning. Someone where I work suggested that given the connections I was making I should look to a ‘frontier AI lab’ as an employer.

            He did not see the instant flashbacks to chasing these weirdos across the internet for almost two decades, watching in horror as the religious psychosis gained national prominence and great destructive power. All he got to hear was my instant intonation of “I’m sorry Dave, I’m afraid I can’t do that.”

      • BigMuffN69@awful.systems
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        11
        ·
        9 days ago

        “From my perspective as an uninformed spectator, I would expect the bets made by Situational Awareness to be positive EV over the long run.”

        Actually the value of his calls in the long run is 0, don’t worry I’m giving this hot financial tip for free. Do these dorks not understand options work? I guess neither did young leo.

        Remember, there’s no crying in the casino. *though i have a feeling Leo will continue to fail upward ;_;

      • rook@awful.systems
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        8
        ·
        9 days ago

        he didn’t hedge on long enough timelines

        Duh. Everybody knows the market never stays irrational for long, and you should just tough it out.

      • CinnasVerses@awful.systems
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        edit-2
        9 days ago

        The LW insider thinks Aschenbrenner is trying to save a stake in Anthropic. I think that is very likely because the press release stressed “public stock position” and Anthropic is privately owned.

        Edit / I don’t think Thomas Kwa of METR and LW understands leverage. The idea is that if you borrow $40.5b on $4.5b of collateral, you have $45b to invest but a 10% drop will wipe you out. Before you get there the bank will knock on your door and say “margin call! either you provide more collateral or we seize your assets.”

        • BigMuffN69@awful.systems
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          8
          ·
          9 days ago

          “He sold? Pamp it”

          Intel up 11% in the day and 5% in the after hours. Really looks like big players took the boy out back behind the woodshed to see what swimming with the sharks feels like and devour his entire port at a discount.

    • lagrangeinterpolator@awful.systems
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      10
      ·
      10 days ago

      Before the days of AI 2027, he became famous in 2024 for posting one of the original pieces of writing in the line-go-up genre: Situational Awareness. It seems that like any good grifter, he used this opportunity to make money (in this case by starting a hedge fund).

      • istewart@awful.systems
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        10
        ·
        9 days ago

        By 2025/26, these machines will outpace many college graduates.

        tick tick tick tick

        (I am choosing to forego the obvious jibe that the models fulfilled this prophecy by dragging many college graduates down beneath them)

        • Soyweiser@awful.systems
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          6
          ·
          9 days ago

          That fits the pattern, when AI isn’t living up to the sky high promises, the promoters act like people are less special than they are.

          See how a debate about are they conscious often devolves into ‘are humans conscious?’

      • EFreethought@awful.systems
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        9
        ·
        9 days ago

        Here is the first sentence: "You can see the future first in San Francisco. "

        I feel like I already know everything I need to know about him.

        • Evinceo@awful.systems
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          11
          ·
          9 days ago

          You can see the future first in San Francisco

          🔮"I see a city street. Massive wealth disparity and a lot of homeless… Jesus that’s a lot of homeless"

          • YourNetworkIsHaunted@awful.systems
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            7 days ago

            Street advertising no longer references products or services people seeing them may wish to use; after all, more and more people have no money to pay for them. Instead they try and AstroTurf hype for one of the new entries to the VC startup casino.

      • scruiser@awful.systems
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        edit-2
        10 days ago

        good grifter

        Not denying that he isn’t also a grifter, but I bet he is a true believer and he had blindly bet his (and other people’s) money on “line goes up” exactly like his scenario said and that is why he is the first one to crack.

    • EFreethought@awful.systems
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      8 days ago

      In hindsight, it is pretty funny that he called his fund “Situational Awareness” and still lost money.

      Maybe someone should start a hedge fund and call it something like, “Maybe This Will All Work Out LLC.” That way there is no disappointment.

    • samvines@awful.systems
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      9 days ago

      Waiting for Musk to turn up and announce “infinity plus one more than you can ever say nah nah nah nah” momentarily!

      TBF he has indirectly killed a bunch of people via doge cuts so that’d do the trick…

    • lurker@awful.systems
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      9 days ago

      The reason these (one of these incidents dates back to April, so they’re really not beating the “marketing campaign” allegations) happened in the first place is because of human error on their end, mind you

      “AI safety focused” my ass

  • lagrangeinterpolator@awful.systems
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    14
    ·
    10 days ago

    There is something about this picture, a warehouse full of books to be destroyed by Anthropic for training data, that just makes me sick. Knowing that they are destroying books in the abstract is bad enough, but seeing the sheer scale of it makes me viscerally angry.

    Karen Hao called her book Empire of AI for a very good reason. The empire has all these noble narratives of bringing civilization and progress to the colonies, but in reality the empire only sees resources to be extracted, repackaged, and sold back to their subjects at a fee. Kudos to those who saw this immediately and fought against it. Shame on those who believed in the narrative of progress, to the point where many of them are collaborators with the empire.

    Whenever a smarmy fellow on Linkedin posts about how AI is making so much progress in coding or math, I want them to see this picture. I want them to see the videos of families in tears after a data center takes away their home with eminent domain, and other families who have to deal with the resulting pollution. Go beyond the bloodless math of tokens and instead see for yourself what this all truly costs. I hope it was worth it.

    • YourNetworkIsHaunted@awful.systems
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      13
      ·
      10 days ago

      What kills me is that there are so many obvious ways to be less wasteful about this. Nondestructive book scanners exist. They’re expensive but it’s not like AI companies are averse to throwing money down a fucking hole. Even if that’s not an option, it’s possible to rebind the pages and return the books to the market. And regardless of what happens to the physical books, the scans they create could be archived in a format that could be available as a digital library rather than just being fed into the statistical meat grinder to keep the trough topped off with slop. Even if they’ve got to fight with copyright holders it would cost them basically nothing to leave the option open and given the PR battle they’ve been losing it feels like doing so would be incredibly obvious. Hell, even Google Books was able to navigate this in a way that was less cartoonishly evil than this because they could point to their digitization effort as a public good in ways that Anthropic here just fucking can’t.

      • corbin@awful.systems
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        8
        ·
        10 days ago

        The reason that they are destroying the books is to avoid the accusation that the scanning constituted copying, an irony that we’ve discussed previously, on Awful while trying to understand which court cases are relevant. Anthropic actually hired the same guy, Tom Turvey, who designed Google Books’ ingestion process, so I’m thinking of this as a sequel to Google Books; hopefully the courts won’t take a decade this time.

    • lurker@awful.systems
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      10 days ago

      Fuck Anthropic. Snotty little bastards want to talk about AI safety and then destroy books to make a pollution machine.

  • nfultz@awful.systems
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    14
    ·
    13 days ago

    The AI Race With China Is a Lie Told by Big Tech to Justify the Data Center Invasion via naked capitalism

    choice quotes:

    More to the point, LLM development in China is incidental to the country’s real goal for AI. Its focus remains on products embedded with AI and robots. Or, as AI policy researcher Liang Zheng says, in China, “The first priority is to use it to benefit ordinary people” (debatable, but indicates the kind of AI they are pursuing).

    In the US, the first priority is to exploit people so that the tech oligarchs can profit. It’s chatbots all the way down.


    Yet, the “AI race” story is a convenient lie for Big Tech and its political protectors. It is a neat political argument designed to insulate the industry from criticism and regulation.

    If every environmental review, every question raised by a community, every issue around water usage and electricity prices can be dismissed or lessened as “helping China,” then meaningful political debate can be silenced. Real regulation—if even possible—can be avoided. Fear becomes a substitute for policy.

    At the same time, data center developers and their minions in Washington have tried to weaponize false claims about foreign ties to the anti-data center movement. Kevin O’Leary of Shark Tank fame has explicitly said that our movement is being funded by China. He has no evidence because evidence of a falsehood can’t exist. In fact, Fox News has been forced to retract its coverage of his claims.

    We understand why O’Leary and the other Tech Broligarchs don’t understand the grassroots opposition to data centers building across the country. It’s hard to spot the grassroots from the window of a private jet.

    • schnoopy@awful.systems
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      9
      ·
      13 days ago

      I need one of those UFO posters that are like “I want to believe” but it’s a picture of the PRCs flag lol.

      As always though pointing at the Spanish germans Russians Chinese remains an evergreen excuse as to why you can’t be anything other than wholely on board with madness or you’re a traitor.

  • nfultz@awful.systems
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    13
    ·
    10 days ago

    AI Crisis Flowchart spotted on linkedin

    spoiler

    and the actual article: https://www.lawfaremedia.org/article/the-ai-that-hacked-its-way-out-and-the-hype-that-followed-it

    quoted zvi haha :|

    To be fair, the safety community can plausibly claim vindication here. At worst, an autonomous agent that breaches containment and attacks a real third party is precisely the scenario researchers have warned about for years, which enthusiasts have routinely dismissed as speculative. And at best, the company in charge of maintaining safety failed to construct an adequate containment system.

    are you fucking kidding me, they have been DDoSing sites for months, everybody knows about it, and the “safety” community has done jack shit the entire time and has offered zero solutions. I know multiple companies that woke up one day to 10-20k netlify bills until they could stand up an anubis.

    Just let hugging face sue the idiots, it isn’t like law enforcement will do anything even though there’s already laws on the books for unauthorized access, industrial espionage, etc etc etc.

    • scruiser@awful.systems
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      10 days ago

      and the “safety” community has done jack shit the entire time and has offered zero solutions.

      Occasionally I see a sane relatively workable idea on lesswrong (like making stricter laws on liability and transparency for everything AI companies do, I’ve also seen this idea put forward on lawfare a few times), but that is like 1 idea out of 20, with the other 19 being absurd, like the absolutely unworkable fantasies of AI: 2040.

    • Sailor Sega Saturn@awful.systems
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      10 days ago

      On land, cooling and water are among a site’s largest costs.

      Oh gosh that sounds… uhmm not too bad actually? I wonder what the largest costs are at sea with a floating nuclear reactor in salt water and tugged around by large ships.

      • rook@awful.systems
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        19
        ·
        10 days ago

        Salt water is famously a forgiving environment to build in, and oceanic weather is benign and predictable. Not that it would be a problem anyway, because move-fast-and-break-things people can be trusted to do the right thing when it comes to running delicate equipment in places more hostile than mid california, and will not skimp on staffing and maintenance. You can look at all the the successful seasteading operations to see how well this will go.

        There are also no problems I can foresee with putting a bucketload of fissiles in international waters, with no scope for finally uniting old-school piracy with new-school piracy, either. This plan is great, and no-one will have a problem with it.

      • fullsquare@awful.systems
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        10 days ago

        but you see, in case of accident they can just dump reactor core into seawater which will provide ample cooling and shielding. no biggie, just put multi thousand ton object that requires a village of engineers to work out on high seas

        there are normal nuclear powerplants that use seawater as coolant and they’re all on shore. these require a lot of corrosion resistant heat exchangers along the way. there is one power barge like this, it provides power to russian far east, whole 70MW of it, costed 414 million dollars and needs 300 people onsite. your guess is as good as mine how many of them are military. 70MW, aka two or three aeroderivative gas turbines

  • samvines@awful.systems
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    13
    ·
    13 days ago

    So it’s been 7-8 months since the software industry decided that AI agents are good now and that you can do a year’s work in 1 hour

    So… Where are all the amazing and wonderful AI generated software products? Where are all the companies using agents to leave the rest of us behind?

    All I see are one-shotted maintainers, big marketing stories with little substance and a pile of detritus made up of abandoned vibe coded projects.

    It’s almost like AI agents make you feel more productive but actually slow you down (paywalled sorry)

    • gerikson@awful.systems
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      11
      ·
      13 days ago

      Yeah. Behind all the hype about percieved productivity etc., there’s really only one benchmark - will GenAI help produce better software, faster, and at less cost? So far this doesn’t seem to be happening.

    • ________@awful.systems
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      11
      ·
      13 days ago

      The major shift of not needing SaaS middleman products because AI can spin them up instantly at scale never happened. Instead we see lay-offs to pay for AI tokens while quality plummets and services offered do not increase.

    • EFreethought@awful.systems
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      10
      ·
      edit-2
      12 days ago

      The AI shills would say: Are you still using the models from six months ago? Because the new models are sooo much more powerful.

      • jaschop@awful.systems
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        10
        ·
        12 days ago

        I once listened to a talk by a guy from german OSHA that hit a lot of the good points. Perceived productivity opposed to actual productivity from the METR studies. Mental load of alien code review. (This was a company-internal IT-expert exchange thingy.)

        A question in Q&A (submitted anonymously on slido like a sniveling coward) was deadass “Have you ever coded with a frontier model?”

            • istewart@awful.systems
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              3
              ·
              11 days ago

              The government agents who live in my walls and plant microphones in all my appliances impose entirely different productivity metrics, which are simultaneously more and less attainable

    • scruiser@awful.systems
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      10 days ago

      He describes textbook insane cult stuff, but still feels the need to say stuff like:

      Again I’ll say: there was a great deal of good at MAPLE.

      The way I’ve described it to friends is that it was the best decision I ever made to go there; the second best, however, being to leave.

      There was the same dynamic in the writing of the ex-leverage member that got posted here a few weeks ago. She also felt the need to emphasize the “good” parts. Is the cult programming that hard to break? Is it some form of sunk cost or rationalization or need to claim something positive about the experience?

      • Architeuthis@awful.systems
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        9 days ago

        I’d say it’s all of that, plus the fact that a lot of the cult stuff are also present in how organised rationalism works in general so you need to believe that such a tradeoff can be mostly worth it, otherwise it’s time to really get packing.

        Although a more charitable read could be that the intended audience are people still under cult influence who need to be communicated to (in the most non-judgemental way possible so as to not trip any cult induced outgroup-o-phobia) that it’s entirely possible to feel you are in a situation with positive and productive elements that is also a fucking cult that is eating you alive.

        The extended framing of how ‘high-control literature’ applies to the MAPLE situation probably also caters to those sensibilities, most other readers probably already got that it’s a cult as soon as stuff like dear leader halting his daily two-hour speech when someone almost nodded off to make everyone stand up and stare at them in silence for ninety minutes started being mentioned. Or the constant surveillance and brainwashing. Or keeping everyone within a hair’s width from collapse from exhaustion at all times. Or the isolation retreats where your only human contact is a few minutes per week of getting told off by dear leader. Or <gestures at everything>.

        Having said all that, the positive aspects of MAPLE the author manages to come up with seem to amount to providing life structure and long term goals, which really doesn’t seem like much:

        Again I’ll say: there was a great deal of good at MAPLE. While many people were being impacted in the ways above, many were also becoming less anxious, more grounded, more relationally attuned, less distracted and more focused, more capable of doing chores and taking on responsibility without internal resistance, physically healthier, deepening in their spiritual practice, and more. Most people experienced some amount of the positive and the negative, which is a large part of why many former residents say their relationship to MAPLE is “complicated.”

      • jaschop@awful.systems
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        edit-2
        9 days ago

        I don’t think you have to be hypercritical of that part. Sure, rose-colored glasses could play into it but he calls the bad stuff bad and doesn’t justify it via the good stuff.

        Also the stuff he describes seems plausibly achievable through buddhist spiritial practice:

        In many ways MAPLE delivered: life-long friendships, freedom from past addictions and limiting self-narratives, strengthened character, and, for many of us, profound spiritual openings and realizations.

        This Soryu figure seems fairly well accredited in that department. He just also happens to be a megalomaniacal control freak.

        (Also, why does he have to share a name with Asoka? I’m dying a little.)

        edit: I knew I spelt megalomaniacal wrong…

      • maol@awful.systems
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        8 days ago

        Yeah, that is really depressing.

        I think it’s a sunk cost thing for the authors, but also it could be fear of coming off as “disgruntled” to people they’re hoping to communicate with. They still have hope of changing these communities, but they know these communities are very hostile and dismissive towards any criticism, especially criticism from perceived “enemies”. They also don’t want to lose whatever power and respect they have in those communities. So emphasising how great these groups are and how smart all the members are and how much they got out of being a member is a tactic to try and get around all that hostility. They want to flatter the remaining members enough that they’ll retain their respect for them. Which in itself is a sad comment on the attitudes common in these communities.

        Having said all that, the poor man is not long out of a cult and has taken a big step by publicly blowing the whistle. That takes some backbone.

  • blakestacey@awful.systems
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    12
    ·
    12 days ago

    Max Kennerly sneers the New York Times:

    This opinion piece, written by someone with no relevant expertise, cites two sources, both of them blogs by people who also have no relevant expertise, one of whom is employed by a sham think tank funded by the “Effective Altruism” propaganda network.

    Truly embarrassing decision to publish it.

  • lagrangeinterpolator@awful.systems
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    12
    ·
    13 days ago

    Clamuel did another podcast. I don’t want to waste my time watching it, but I want to sneer at some choice quotes from news articles breathlessly reporting this stuff as gospel 1, 2

    “We are now, like, in the singularity”

    Is the singularity in the room with us right now? Even the people on X the Everything (Including CSAM) App aren’t so convinced.

    Altman said on the podcast that just a decade ago, the so-called singularity still felt like a distant and improbable dream — something he and his colleagues would discuss casually over lunch.

    “Now we’re actually in the moment that we used to talk about at the lunch table in a very not-serious way,” he said. “I’ve been waiting for this my whole life, and I think it’s going to be incredible, hugely positive, awesome for the world.”

    Do you feel it? Do you feel incredible? Do you feel hugely positive? Do you feel awesome, now that the singularity is here? Oh wait, he’s speaking in the future tense again, never mind. Force of habit.

    It’s also funny how he talks about how positive things are gonna be immediately after the super scary hack done on Hugging Face (really due to incompetence on both sides). Oh no, the AI is gonna kill us all! It’s going to be incredible, hugely positive, awesome for the world.

    Later in the podcast, Altman criticizes AI leaders who have repeatedly warned that AI is dangerous. He didn’t name Anthropic, his primary competition, but its CEO, Dario Amodei, is well-known for making dire predictions about the future in his calls for greater attention to safety.

    “I also think some of the alternative visions painted by other companies are quite terrifying,” Altman said. “I’m going to make sure that gets pushed against and is not what happens.”

    At least Clammy realizes that all the doom trolling about how AI will replace and destroy all humans turns out, surprisingly, to lead to overwhelming negative public opinion. But this statement truly reassures me that Scammy has good intentions about AI safety. He will make sure this is pushed against and is not what happens. He wouldn’t want another super scary, dangerous hack that just so conveniently turns out to be excellent marketing.

    OpenAI CEO Sam Altman says one of his biggest concerns about AI isn’t whether it becomes too powerful in and of itself, but that a single company could control that power.

    Yeah, it would be really bad for Anthropic to control all the power of AI. It would be a disaster to hand everything over to Anthropic.

    “Every time that humanity has traded off its liberty for safety, it’s been a long-term net loss,” Altman said. “We are going to put this in the hands of people. We’re going to empower them. We are going to let society express its ideas and use this technology in the way they want.”

    Society is expressing its ideas about AI, all right. But I feel like they aren’t what he has in mind.

    Altman, meanwhile, said preventing such power from becoming overly concentrated has long been central to his vision for AI, even as his company continues to keep its own models closed.

    “For so long now, I have felt focused on this singular goal of abundant intelligence and a belief that incredible human prosperity will come from that, as long as we don’t have a weird power concentration and kind of a new authoritarianism,” he said.

    Well, we seem to have a weird power concentration and “kind of” a new authoritarianism, but I don’t see any abundant intelligence or incredible human prosperity.

    Lots more sneers on the Better Offline subreddit.

    • blakestacey@awful.systems
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      13
      ·
      13 days ago

      Do you feel it? Do you feel incredible? Do you feel hugely positive? Do you feel awesome

      Yeah, but that’s just the cocaine

      • CinnasVerses@awful.systems
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        11
        ·
        13 days ago

        It was Yudkowsky-2008 who was astonished that “these CEOs and CTOs and hedge-fund traders, these folk of the mid-level power elite, seemed happier and more alive,” prompting David Gerard to ask “My dude, have you never heard of cocaine?” I don’t know if he had moved to the Bay Area yet but Yudkowsky-2025 had thoughts on LSD.

    • lurker@awful.systems
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      12
      ·
      edit-2
      13 days ago

      We entered the Singularity and all I got was a bunch of fucking annoying and delusional businessmen

    • Amoeba_Girl@awful.systems
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      10
      ·
      12 days ago

      “Every time that humanity has traded off its liberty for safety, it’s been a long-term net loss”

      oh has it now. the spirit of humanity’s been in decline since we’ve eroded workers’ freedom to breathe that good asbestos air and lose their hand in the hand mauling machine, yeah?

      • lagrangeinterpolator@awful.systems
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        9
        ·
        12 days ago

        It gets worse. I found another article about the same podcast: Sam Altman says AI won’t shorten the workweek because humans secretly enjoy being busy.

        “Technology, for a long time, has been promising people that they’re going to work less and they’re going to have all this leisure,” Altman said. “But somehow we never get the promise of the four-hour workweek at mass scale in society,” he added. “And I don’t expect AI to change that.”

        “It’s like a relative game. People are very focused on how they’re doing relative to other people,” the CEO said.

        “I think we’re all going to be much busier than we thought we were supposed to be in a post-superintelligence world. We’re still going to complain about it, but secretly we’re going to be happy,” Altman concluded.

      • istewart@awful.systems
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        8
        ·
        12 days ago

        Observe the power of a rhetorician who recycles singularitarian AND libertarian talking points simultaneously!

        …damn, it’s not really very impressive. at all.

      • lagrangeinterpolator@awful.systems
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        9
        ·
        12 days ago

        The chuds are all at r/accelerate now. “We’re the unapologetically Pro-AI alternative to r/singularity, r/futurology, r/artificial & r/technology which are becoming filled with Luddites, Techno-Decelerationists, Techno-Reactionaries, & Anti-AIs.”

  • rook@awful.systems
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    11
    ·
    edit-2
    12 days ago

    As an interesting follow-up to the ai-does-maths-using lean4 stubstack comments on Sunday, an llm accidentally uncovers a bug in the lean4 kernel.

    Summary by Meven Lennon-Bertrand:

    https://lipn.info/@mevenlennonbertrand/116997917683191056

    To summarize:

    • an AI agent let loose provides a sorry-free proof of the Collatz conjecture
    • the proof is detected as actually being a kernel bug
    • the bug is related to (nested) inductive types, for which there is no clear theoretical specification: the kernel’s code is the reference
    • external checkers (lean4lean and nanoda from a week ago) reproduce the bug, because they essentially copied the reference kernel implementation

    Eta: “sorry-free” in this case means a complete proof with no trust-me-bro steps or TODOs… the sorry tactic in lean “proves” a theorem to be correct even if it is garbage or incomplete. More programming languages should make developers apologise for half-arsing their work.

    And so

    • AI raises the bar for kernel correctness by a lot
    • without a clear type-theoretic understanding of what is actually implemented, we’re toast
    • external checkers help to catch implementation bugs, but without a clear specification they can’t catch logic bugs

    How bad this is, is unclear just yet… probably not the sky actually falling, but not great. Interesting though.

    • corbin@awful.systems
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      12 days ago

      Lean was already known to be untrustworthy and bad, although people refuse to internalize the situation because they’re caught up in Buzzard’s hype machine. This is extremely funny but I don’t see any signs of people waking up and realizing that Lean sucks.

    • rook@awful.systems
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      11 days ago

      A little bit of plot thickening spotted by abadidea: https://infosec.exchange/@0xabad1dea/117002106099986943

      tl;dr, the timeline looks like this:

      • “proof” of collatz conjecture released
      • bugs identified in lean kernel
      • proof demonstrated to use these bugs

      There was only a day between the first two events, and the non-proof was not where the bugs were discovered. So maybe it was just a coincidence that the chatbot found the bug at the same time, or maybe it’s training data included previous investigations into those bugs which it then built upon and that would be a bad thing for other llm generated proofs.

      The collatz conjecture is sufficiently famous that enough third-party checking was done to spot the problem. I wonder how much checking would have been done on proofs of less famous and interesting things.

      • rook@awful.systems
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        10 days ago

        And a follow-up by talia ringer, who observes that there have always been gaps between the type-theoretic underpinnings of things like the lean prover and their actual implementation, and this hasn’t been so much of an issue til now because theorem provers haven’t had the attention of people in high places, and the type-theoreticians have been able to catch up in due course.

        https://mathstodon.xyz/@TaliaRinger/117005740997367321

        My big worry right now is that if organizations continue to fund the crap out of Al for formal proof research (and to generally support implementation and maintenance of proof assistants like Lean as part of that effort) but don’t bother funding the type theory side of things, those gaps will grow larger and will be exploited more often by Al tools via reward hacking. Whereas people tend to only exploit kernel bugs to make a point that the bug exists. Thus proof assistants will grow less trustworthy over time.

        Anyone want to place any bets on whether or nor the big llm companies are going to fund academic research that isn’t obviously mechanisable right now and won’t yield any clickbait headlines?

  • Sailor Sega Saturn@awful.systems
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    11
    ·
    edit-2
    11 days ago

    It sure is a zany coincidence that all the major American AI companies have come out either for or against open weight AI models with grand ethical and/or patriotic concerns all at the same time isn’t it?

    Most recently our pal Zuck! https://www.wsj.com/opinion/the-ai-future-is-for-everyone-a0c24e20

    I’m just imagining a WSJ reader reading this and thinking “what the heck is this man talking about”. At some point you need a little structure or text to balance out the subtext.

    Edit: did I miss any?

    OpenAI (discussed here the other week): https://nitter.net/deanwball/status/2078133895766114412 / https://xcancel.com/deanwball/status/2078619513575137330

    Microsoft: https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/corporate-responsibility/topics/open-weight/

    Anthropic: https://www.anthropic.com/news/position-open-weights-models

    Nvidia: https://images.nvidia.com/pdf/Open-Weights-and-American-AI-Leadership.pdf

    Google: https://xcancel.com/sundarpichai/status/2081026488158040181

    Amazon The Washington Post who I’m sure wrote this for reasons completely unrelated to Mr. Bezos: https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2026/07/02/right-answer-chinas-open-weight-ai-models-is-build-our-own/

    That one guy I hate: https://xcancel.com/elonmusk/status/2080672505660834163

    • mirrorwitch@awful.systems
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      9
      ·
      11 days ago

      As intelligence becomes abundant, the most important question will be how we direct it. Some argue that superintelligence itself, or a small set of experts who control it, should decide what is best for humanity. I disagree. The history of democracy and economics has shown that there is no single objective answer to how people define the best life, and therefore the best approach is letting people decide what matters to them. Rather than centralizing this power, we believe that delivering personal superintelligence to everyone is the way to answer this question.

      Healthy societies also recognize that safety requires checks and balances. If only a handful of institutions have superintelligence, they will inevitably exercise a controlling influence over economics, science and politics. Even with the best intentions, that concentration would limit people’s ability to choose their own future.

      Famous enemy of software monopolies and tech oligarchies that have an outsized influence over politics, champion of distributed ownership of the means of computation Mark Zuckerberg

    • Evinceo@awful.systems
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      11 days ago

      It’s going to be really interesting to see if the foss zealots who switched over to the AI side will handle heavy handed regulation taking away their local models.

  • gerikson@awful.systems
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    11
    ·
    11 days ago

    a stock-slobber posts a cri de cœur about the coming automation of maths and HN says it’s no biggie, think how productive the field will become

    https://kirwinhampshire.substack.com/p/the-dark-night-of-mathematics

    https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49048681

    btw the language in the post is bad enough to be entirely human-generated

    For me, the affective quality of learning mathematics is empathetically tethered to an act of discovery and creation.

    Before you a channel through which humans have accessed the ineffable and sacred for thousands of years is being sealed for eternity.

    • scruiser@awful.systems
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      10
      ·
      10 days ago

      The blogger simultaneously elevates mathematics to some mystical endeavor and fixates on novel theorem proving as the key element of that and believes LLM-based AI will replace human mathematicians at theorem proving in a matter of years… that is quite a combination. I can imagine how 1.5 of those things fit together (although I disagree with that view point obviously), but the whole package is really quite an odd combination.

      Also, in the fantasy scenarios where AI really is capable of totally replacing mathematicians, aren’t we supposed to get post-scarcity abundance, freeing up your time to pursue mathematics out of pure desire for enlightenment? Maybe the blogger doesn’t believe that part? Or they are so attached to themselves personally getting to discover novel theorems first they don’t care that the post-scarcity era would on net free up a lot more people to pursue pure mathematics as a hobby.