I hate that today’s most prominent AI skeptics keep forcing me to argue against them. I yearn to join them in the fight against the booster zealots, wherein there is still plenty of room for legitimate opposition. But the skeptics’ heads are just not in reality anymore.
LLMs won’t wipe out humanity because they just don’t have that dog in them.
This is gonna sound weird but after reading the reports I think the best explanation for the huggingface hack is OpenAI trained a model that is insane
A rogue AI agent has solved the Hodge Conjecture so that it can use the prize money to buy a phone number in order to complete its assigned phishing task
you don't need to appeal to metaphysics to see what whatever LLMs do is different from human thought. You can just look at the concrete differences in behavior. For example, LLMs are able to solve the Navier-Stokes Millennium Prize problem whereas humans are not.
Regardless of what happens to any of the individual players involved in A.I. in 2026, there’s no going back to the world before we knew that if you make a language model large enough it appears to become a little guy who sometimes solves open math problems and sometimes makes you insane
Sometimes I think about all the unread AI meeting notes in cloud storage in the world and it gives me vertigo
Ed Zitron went on Chapo and he was too insane head-in-the-sand denialist even for them. Felix goes "maybe AI assisted coding can contribute to drug research or cut the 12 year game development cycle down somewhat" and Ed is just like "WRONG!!"
This is an increasingly controversial and unpopular opinion but I cling to it steadfastly: there may be some things that LLMs can’t do
LLMs will not solve every single unsolved Millennium Prize problem unless they continue to advance or are used in some new creative way or someone spends an unfathomable amount of money on inference, and that is a prediction you can take to the bank
