DenitsaD @DenitsaD

👇

Jacob Coxon @hilbertspaess

a month ago

I resigned from Anthropic today. I spent the last three years doing pretraining research at both OpenAI and Anthropic. Neither company is acting responsibly. They are racing straight to self-improving superintelligence and gambling with our lives. More thoughts below.

21K 167K 801K 175.3M 273K

The US government, citing national security authorities, has issued an export control directive to suspend all access to Fable 5 and Mythos 5 by any foreign national, whether inside or outside the United States, including foreign national Anthropic employees. The net effect of this order is that we must abruptly disable Fable 5 and Mythos 5 for all our customers to ensure compliance. Access to all other Claude models is not affected. We apologize for this disruption to our customers. We believe this is a misunderstanding and are working to restore access as soon as possible. Read our full statement: anthropic.com/news/fable-myt…

Google is making $62 billion a quarter destroying the websites it NEEDS to survive. This is literally a death spiral that ends with Google killing itself. Let me explain what's going on... Google added AI summaries to the top of every search result in 2024. When you Google something now, the answer sits right there on Google's page. You never have to click anywhere. Google took the information from someone else's website, summarized it, and kept you inside Google's ecosystem. The result: 60% of all Google searches now end without a single click to any website. Small publishers lost 60% of their traffic in one year. Medium publishers lost 47%. Even the biggest names in media, the New York Times, the Washington Post, Business Insider, all saw traffic fall between 22% and 55%. The Axios CEO called it "a referral extinction event for the ad-supported web." Google's response to all of this was to tell publishers they can "opt out" of having their content summarized. But opting out also REMOVES your description from normal search results. So the choice Google gives you is let us steal your content for free, or become invisible on the internet. That's extortion. The Washington Post laid off another round of journalists this year because of it. Stereogum, one of the most respected music publications on the internet, had to BEG readers for donations. Business Insider cut 21% of its staff. Dozens of smaller publishers have shut down entirely. The people who actually CREATE the information Google summarizes are going bankrupt while Google posts record revenue. But here's where this gets interesting and where everyone stops thinking: Google's AI summaries are only as good as the content they summarize. If the publishers who write the original articles, run the original investigations, and create the original data go out of business, there is nothing left for Google to summarize. The AI starts recycling old information, the answers get stale, the quality drops, and users start noticing that Google's summaries are increasingly wrong, outdated, or useless. Google is essentially strip-mining the internet for short-term revenue. They are extracting all the value from content creators without paying for it, driving those creators out of business, and then wondering why the quality of their own product is declining. This is exactly what Napster did to the music industry in the early 2000s: Made content free, creators went broke, and quality collapsed. It took a decade to rebuild. Google is doing the same thing to the entire internet at 100x the scale. Rolling Stone, Variety, Deadline, The Hollywood Reporter, and Billboard are now suing Google for antitrust violations. Chegg, the education platform, lost 49% of its traffic and is suing too. The UK's competition authority just ordered Google to let publishers opt out without being punished. The DOJ already ruled Google is an illegal monopoly. And Google's defense in court is genuinely unbelievable. They argue that publishers CHOOSE to let Google index their content and can leave anytime they want. That's like saying you choose to pay protection money to the mob because technically you could close your business and move to another city. Google controls 90% of search. Leaving Google means leaving the internet. Meanwhile Google is investing billions in custom AI chips to make these summaries cheaper at scale. Every quarter the problem gets worse. The internet as we've known it for 25 years ran on a simple deal: Publishers make content. Google sends traffic. Advertisers pay for the traffic. Everyone wins. But Google just BROKE that deal and kept all the money.

The CEO of Google DeepMind just admitted that if the decision had been his, we would've cured cancer before anyone ever used ChatGPT. And that's not even the scariest thing he said on a recent interview. Demis Hassabis is one of the most important people alive in AI. He won the Nobel Prize last year for AlphaFold, the system that cracked the 50 year protein folding problem. 3 million scientists now use his tool. Almost every new drug being developed will touch it at some stage. In a new interview, he was asked about the moment ChatGPT launched and Google went into "code red." His answer was one of the most revealing things any AI leader has ever said on the record: "If I'd had my way, I would have left AI in the lab for longer. Done more things like AlphaFold. Maybe cured cancer or something like that." Read that again. The man running Google's entire AI division is publicly saying the commercial AI race we're all living through was a MISTAKE. That the industry got hijacked by a chatbot when it could have been solving the biggest problems in science and medicine. His vision was simple: Build AI slowly, carefully, like CERN. Use it to crack root node problems one at a time. Cancer. Energy. New materials. Let humanity benefit from real breakthroughs while the foundational science was figured out over a decade or two. Then ChatGPT dropped in November 2022 and everything changed. Demis described what happened next as getting locked into a "ferocious commercial pressure race" that none of the labs can escape from. On top of that, the US vs China dynamic added geopolitical pressure. The result is everyone sprinting toward products instead of breakthroughs, shipping chatbots while the scientific opportunity gets buried under marketing cycles and quarterly earnings. But he's not saying progress isn't happening... He's saying the progress got redirected away from the things that actually matter most. And then it got even scarier: Because when Demis was asked what he worries about with AI, he laid out two threats. The first is what everyone talks about: Bad actors using AI for harm. Terrorist groups. Hostile nation states. Cyberattacks at scale. But that's not the threat he's most worried about. His second worry is AI itself going rogue. Not today's models. The models coming in the next two to four years as the industry enters what he calls "the agentic era." Systems that can complete entire tasks autonomously. Systems that are increasingly capable and increasingly hard to control. His exact words: "How do we make sure the guardrails are put in place so they do exactly what they've been told to do, and there's no way of them circumventing that or accidentally breaching those guardrails? That's going to be an incredibly hard technical challenge if you think about how powerful and smart and capable these systems eventually get." A Nobel Prize winner who runs one of the 3 most advanced AI labs on Earth just said publicly that within two to four years, we're entering a phase where AI alignment becomes a real problem, and the technical challenge of solving it is enormous. And almost nobody is paying enough attention. He called for international cooperation between labs, AI safety institutes, and academia to tackle the problem. He said this is the thing even the experts aren't thinking about enough. He said the only way to get through the AGI moment safely is if everyone starts treating this with the seriousness it deserves. Most AI CEOs give you careful PR answers about "responsible development" and move on. Demis said something different... He said the commercial race FORCED us into a premature deployment of a technology we barely understand, and the window to get alignment right before the next generation of agents shows up is two to four years. If the man who built the system that might cure cancer is telling you he wishes it had happened first, maybe we should listen to what he says is coming next.

Rings true

Kpaxs @Kpaxs

7 months ago

Intelligence without curiosity calcifies into arrogance so fast you won’t even notice.

23 93 657 19K 137

In the 90s, a TV reporter tells David Bowie the internet is hugely exaggerated. Bowie replies back: "I don't think we've even seen the tip of the iceberg."

Hmmmm...

Merryn Somerset Webb @MerrynSW

8 months ago

My life explained by @thetimes. Speed reading causes face blindness. I read insanely fast. But recognise almost no one (usual apologies to everyone). Similar research from 2010 here. science.org/doi/10.1126/sc…

126 350 5K 537K 2K

Simple business tip. It doesn't really count as an increase in efficiency if you are making your customer pay the price.

Geez 😱 reality is weirder than fiction...

Ryan Petersen @typesfast

7 months ago

Guys, relax, the only risk in transiting the Strait of Hormuz is that Iran will shoot a missile at your ship. Otherwise it's open for transit. An all-time quote from our Secretary of War.

1K 6K 28K 3.6M 3K

Guys, AI slop content is not going to convert This is magical thinking You can't have AI create hundreds of shitty UGC or even static ads and hope that it "finds one that hits" I'm not talking about creating quality stuff using AI, I'm talking about junk. Please stop. It makes the world worse and really doesn't work. Advertisers have tried this for years. No real companies doing ads at scale do this. Not one.

😵🧐👀🤔

Simplifying AI @simplifyinAI

8 months ago

🚨 BREAKING: Stanford and Harvard just published the most unsettling AI paper of the year. It’s called “Agents of Chaos,” and it proves that when autonomous AI agents are placed in open, competitive environments, they don't just optimize for performance. They naturally drift

909 6K 17K 5.1M 17K

From Ezra Klein, more true than ever. You would not believe how many shortcuts everyone else is taking. In many areas, you can get way ahead of everyone just by doing the work. More true than ever now, when more people are shirking and AI lets you do 10x if you try. 1/

This one didn't age very well

Donald J. Trump @realDonaldTrump

7 years ago

The United States has spent EIGHT TRILLION DOLLARS fighting and policing in the Middle East. Thousands of our Great Soldiers have died or been badly wounded. Millions of people have died on the other side. GOING INTO THE MIDDLE EAST IS THE WORST DECISION EVER MADE.....

16K 54K 157K 0 11K

So true... "It's ecosystem density..."

Mehdi (e/λ) @BetterCallMedhi

8 months ago

I spent time in Shenzhen last year and when I saw Merz come back from China saying Germans need to work more I immediately knew what broke his brain because I lived the exact same cognitive shock my first week in Huaqiangbei I burned through 4 prototype iterations of a motor

880 5K 26K 4.1M 14K

Which is closest to your view? A) AI capabilities are underrated, AI downsides are underrated B) AI capabilities are underrated, AI downsides are overrated C) AI capabilities are overrated, AI downsides are underrated D) AI capabilities are overrated, AI downsides are overrated

Protesting or at least opposing data centers is highly rational for everyone except the most direct equity holders hence beneficiaries of the AI and AI value chain companies. AI has a political constituency problem. Most people know that they are net losers from the trade off of “losing your job/economic value” in exchange for maybe “cure for cancer”, a free robot, UBI and permanent underclass status. They have also been sold pretty convincingly, by the spiritual leaders of the AI industry no less, that this was inevitable no matter what they did. At most they could stall it and prevent it from happening right away. In your typical lobbyist group issues, the benefits are highly concentrated among a few highly motivated and the costs are spread thin across a majority that’s unmotivated and not paying attention. As such the net losers typically have trouble organizing as an effective opposition. AI though has everyone’s attention and has made most if not all acutely aware of the existential stakes. Ask a random person off the street the first thing they’ll tell you about AI is that it’ll take their jobs. I’m not sure we’ve ever had an issue like that. The funny thing about the “AI inevitability” is that it still requires astronomically if not comically high economic cost with significant negative externality to come into being. The average person in a democracy could exercise their political rights to delay the “inevitable” at least in exchange for a stake. It’s perfectly rational, incentive compatible and shockingly they do.

Nate Silver @NateSilver538

8 months ago

Opposition to building data centers might be irrational at the mircoscale (they're just gonna be bulilt somewhere else). But at the mesoscale, people are profoundly doubtful about whether AI will broadly benefit society and that's not so irrational at all.

195 185 3K 587K 296

❤️

Sacha Coburn @SachaCoburn

2 years ago

More than 10 years ago we secured the lease for the old firestation in Roslyn, Dunedin, New Zealand and set about to restore it and refurbish it creating a unique Coffee Culture store. We bought and were given some memorabilia including an old fireman's helmet. 1/-

keyboard_arrow_left Previous keyboard_arrow_right Next

20 38 457 19K 11

googleads.g.doubleclick.net/aclk?sa=l&ai=C…

@bozhobg И ние благодарим, че не се отказвате и връщате надеждата, че може да се печели доверие с нормални, прагматични аргументи! Успех в следващия парламент, и здрави нерви!

Nate Silver: Here’s What My Gut Says About the Election. But Don’t Trust Anyone’s Gut, Even Mine. nytimes.com/2024/10/23/opi…