David Colarusso reposted
It’s like they know that I need to wrap up my annual Internet Law casebook revisions in the next few weeks. www.anthropic.com/news/fable-m...
Who's Who of AI
David Colarusso
Co-director @suffolkLITLab.org (Legal Innov. & Tech). Attorney & science educator by training & practice. Data scientist, craftsman, & writer by experience. No manels.
My bots: @icymilaw.org, @news.bot.suffolklitlab.org & @lolscotus.bsky.social
What they're sharing
Statement on the US government directive to suspend access to Fable 5 and Mythos 5 anthropic.com
View on Bluesky →
Chatbots Keep Telling Stories About Lighthouse Keeper 'Elias Thorne'. We Might Know Why 404media.co
Encyclical Letter of His Holiness Leo XIV Magnifica Humanitas (15 May 2026) vatican.va
How to burst the AI bubble: Strike at its roots arstechnica.com
wsj.com
Useful patterns for building HTML tools simonwillison.net
suffolklitlab.org
Law RPG: Artificial Intelligence and the Law lawrpg.org
Articles & links
TL;DR: The working theory is that stories about this archetype/character made up a high proportion of what was left in training data after "dangerous" stories were removed. So a small sample of "safe" content ballooned in importance.
"CONCLUSION" doesn't lend itself to an AKA. So, I'll go with, we're all in this together and "... it is imperative to cultivate hearts that love the truth, prefer what is right despite the most appealing content and pursue wisdom rather than immediate results." www.vatican.va/…
AI Weekly's analysis
→
- Pope Leo XIV's 42,300-word Magnifica Humanitas, signed May 15 and published May 25, addresses AI as the central challenge to human dignity.
- The encyclical states AI systems are 'cultivated' not 'built' and explicitly denies they possess experience, a body, or the capacity to feel pain.
- Anthropic co-founder Chris Olah spoke at the Vatican's May 25 presentation alongside theologians and three cardinals.
Read full analysis →
More than any other public voice, Doctorow's AI take comes closest to articulating how I feel about the whole thing. Is it a bubble? Yes. Does that mean it's worthless? No. Do I worry about copyright? Mostly no, though I worry a lot about labor & monopolies, not to mention bia…
AI Weekly's analysis
→
- Sequoia calculated the AI sector needs roughly $600 billion in annual revenue to justify current infrastructure spending, while OpenAI generated about $3.4 billion last year.
- Doctorow argues bubble mechanics route risk to ordinary pension holders because insiders exit first, leaving market-based pension holders to absorb the correction.
- His deflation prescription targets root structure: stronger antitrust enforcement, sectoral bargaining rights, unemployment cushions, and public procurement favoring open AI models.
Read full analysis →
If an AI proves a theorem in the forest, does it make a sound?
Fun fact: The whole thing happens in your browser (i.e., the tool is just an HTML file with some JavaScript calling Bluesky's public API) which is only possible because it's CORS enabled! See simonwillison.net/2025/Dec/10/...
Sharing this question so I can come back and revisit the replies. So far, it looks to be attracting a lot of thoughtful suggestions. From my own experience, I’ll add: educational simulations. See e.g., suffolklitlab.org/algos-bias-d...
I can tell you from experience, it can be quite a ride. Some students took it as a challenge to trap the AI in an error.¹ Others very earnestly cataloged the boundaries of their usefulness, both approaches primed them for better future engagements w/ the materials. ¹ lawrpg.or…
Their own posts
Recent commentary
Now hear me out, but I'm starting to think the term AI might have been used in such a way as to render its meaning not only functionally useless for reasoned discussion but that its lack of definition might actually be at odds with such. Just a thought.
Every time someone explains their approach to AI I hear this old George Carlin bit in my head, "Have you ever noticed that when you're driving that anyone who's driving slower than you is an idiot, and that anyone driving faster than you is a maniac!?"
What am I to make of folks who criticizes AI for making people forgo deep reading dunking on the provocation from an essay and using it to attribute to an author the exact opposite of their conclusion?
Just realized that I described ML as the OG AI on a call, and I can’t decide if I should cringe or hold my head high.
I was working on a website with a colleague recently, and they asked if I inserted some typos to prove the site wasn’t made with AI. I was like, “No. I’m dyslexic, and my code editor doesn’t have spell check.” I also said, “thank you,” and meant it.
Their network
In David Colarusso's orbit
Center = David Colarusso. Left = members they follow (green edges). Right = members who follow them (blue edges). Top = mutual follows (orange edges, slightly larger). Drag any node to reposition; click to open that profile.