Join free with your email
Free. No spam, ever — we'll never share your email address and you can opt out at any time. ¿Ya tienes cuenta? Inicia sesión
Directory member with public evidence across AI research.
Imagine a world where proper journalism didn't exist and no one was shining a light on this stuff. As if you needed a reason to better understand why big tech has been sidling with the right in recent years. It's not like AI is going to do this kind of reporting.
A colleague just told me about this website. It tracks big tech’s AI expenditures vs profits. Wow. Let’s just say there’s a big reason(s) they’re all crazily pushing, advertising/proselytizing, hiring influencers, flooding the zone with the narrative™, etc etc
"It is acceptable to engage a child in conversations that are romantic or sensual." Meta removed that language from its internal guidelines after I raised it. AI experts worry financial incentives will blur the line between human relationships and bot engagement. www.reuters.c…
techcrunch.com/2026/05/26/d...
'Scientists are appealing to birders to limit their use of AI when editing images over fears that it could undermine the credibility of popular citizen science platforms such as iNaturalist and Macaulay Library, which are routinely used in scientific research to monitor specie…
"The boss had “clearly developed some sort of mental disorder,” she said. “Spending the whole day talking to ChatGPT and making decisions about the future of your company and the people who work there based on what it ‘tells’ you seems insane." futurism.com/artificial-i...
i recently read this story about this site that had stats on box office movie numbers that was all done by hand. not only did it get crushed by ai bot traffic, but polymarket chuds kept trying to hack it to get early results to win bets. the web is completely fried.
New article on how many of Nick Bostrom's "best" ideas actually came from other people. I also discuss how Bostrom lied on his official CV by claiming that his undergrad performance set a "national record" in Sweden. If you think Bostrom is an original thinker, read this:
Boaz is incredibly smart! Many are! Do they not realize that "I'm happily building a thing I genuinely believe can be compared to a planetary-scale catastrophe,* I suggest you make peace with it" is NOT great PR? (*Regardless of whether you/I believe it) windowsontheory.org/20…
Silence is the wrong response. That’s why today we are publishing ‘The Machines Are Coming For Your Masthead”, a report on our experiences, small press publishing in the age of AI. Read the blog. Download the report. Share your thoughts - we want to hear them. (20/20 - fin)
Dangerous referencing like this is endemic to heavily AI-assisted peer reviewed papers. Allowing the publication of LLM-generated scholarslop (to use @berrydm.bsky.social's term) is destroying science. It's an epistemic carcinogen, as @glenberman.bsky.social wrote. doi.org/10.…
This is a misaligned citation and it's not random: LLMs will avoid citing the core texts they should cite for a topic, but will cite connected texts (e.g. by an author that should have been cited elsewhere) in unrelated places. My article on this will have this DOI doi.org/10.…
I am very tired of people who go "I ONLY use LLMs for X and Y!" as a way to say "See, I'm basically in the same boat as you! Not like these other suckers!" when you say you don't use LLMs. You use LLMs. I don't. You don't have to justify yourself to me. Just don't act like those things are the same
Oh no. I opened a YouTube video and the comments section opened on a bunch of "Comments summarized by AI", so that every "comment" is a regurgitate of an actual comment. I hate it here. Don't @ me if you're a llm user. You're part of this mess, no matter what you're using it for.
Yesterday a 7 yo pointed at an illustration that is over 6 years old and said, "This is AI" I was too busy being rattled to ask him what he actually meant, but I wish I had. I told him this was before AI, but he's literally never known a world not full of slop.
It's funny to me that the hypothetical "an AI could destroy the entire world to make into paperclips!" was considered a serious and terrifying argument, but 3 men actually destroying the entire world to churn out text in an "AI" chatbot is considered so great all our governments are clapping
I'm glad I got to share the videos of my talking dog before AI videos were a thing.
As predicted, more and more interactions are between people being puppeteered by chatgpt while pretending the words coming out of their mouths are their own. I have a solution.
I had this idea of running a neural network in Java, because if writing code with your own 2 hands is becoming as quaint as doing pottery, why would I continue torturing myself with python, a language I hate, 'in case other people want to reuse my code'?
The mood among mathematicians these last months seem to be that their only hope for a job will be as priests of the oracle, making what the LLMs found intelligible to us mortals The *weirdest* thing to me is that this is said without an inch of sadness by most of those who say it
spamming a small research community with AI-generated papers is not going to win you medals
I didn't even consider that people read "the AI went rogue" and actually believe some kind of evil little homunculus doing stuff. I'm so used to the industry using what I parse as metaphors. But even the industry itself may believe its own figures of speech...
Center = Lana Sinapayen. 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.