John Novotny @Set2Infinity

@alexwg youtu.be/bi23y0x-MhA?si…

youtu.be/bi23y0x-MhA?si…

Sam Altman’s coach, Joe Hudson, shared a wild insight on My First Million (~1:18:00): OpenAI researchers have zero consensus on whether AI is a threat to humanity. In fact, their views seem driven more by personal upbringing than reality.

@alexwg Sam Altman’s coach, Joe Hudson, shared a wild insight on My First Million (~1:18:00): OpenAI researchers have zero consensus on whether AI is a threat to humanity. In fact, their views seem driven more by personal upbringing than reality. Crazy.

x.com/i/article/2108…

@alexwg Grab your fedora and your whip. We're navigating the traps of AI safety politics and escaping the Temple of P(doom). No time for doomstalling when there’s real science to build. This would be a good theme for the outro of i can get to it.

@SaulZimet In your article 'Heinlein’s Wager: Against Nihilism, Toward Moral Discovery' you mention moral philosophy. There appear to be some similarities with Stoicism with moral philosophy. No?

@AmericanALCHMY Are you planning trip to the island on one of your fact finding documentaries?

A sign of how unwell contemporary science has become: The well-respected physicist commentator Sabine Hossenfelder @skdh has lost her academic affiliation because she dared to criticise a physicist's research. She delivers a damning condemnation: "A lot of research and the foundations of Physics is now pseudo-science. It hasn't followed the scientific method for decades." youtu.be/ZO5u3V6LJuM?si… She recounts a recent incident where a physicist contacted her, upset that she had judged their research as "100% bullshit", demanded she remove the relevant video, and then complained to people he believed were her supervisors when she refused. As a result of complaints (including from members of the community upset about her criticism of their research and academic conduct in general), her former academic institution—the Munich Center for Mathematical Philosophy— has discontinued her affiliation. Sabine is financially independent thanks to her audience support, so she is unbothered by the loss of affiliation or attempts to pressure her; however, she is concerned that many physicists fail to recognize the fundamental problems with their field. The broader issue in theoretical high-energy physics and foundations of physics is not new: critics like David Lindley ("the end of physics") and John Horgan ("the end of science") have pointed it out, yet the production of low-value "garbage" papers continues daily, gets published, funded, and hyped in the media. Many experts acknowledge the problems privately but stay silent publicly to protect their reputations and funding; an exception is physicist Will Kinney, who publicly criticized inflation model-building as mostly useless mathematical exercises with no realistic expectation of correctness. She strongly endorses Jesper Grimstrup's book "The Ant Mill," which describes the crisis in theoretical high-energy physics: no major breakthroughs in ~50 years, a lack of genuinely new ideas, and strong social pressures toward tribalism and groupthink that discourage independent thinking. She says intelligent people are wasting their time and taxpayer money on unproductive work due to ingrained groupthink; physicists are often shocked by external criticism and refuse to accept responsibility, blaming the critic instead. Hallmarks of pseudoscience in this area include: it looks like science from the inside (with courses, conferences, and jargon), but involves inventing mathematical "stories" or fictions about non-existent laws, new particles, forces, gravities, the beginning of the universe, multiverses, or extra dimensions—with what she says is zero empirical evidence. She compares this to naturopathy or other 'pseudoscientific' fields for brainwashing, rejection of challenging views, and overconfidence in one's intelligence; the main difference is that quack medical claims can directly harm people, while quack physics papers mainly waste money and resources. She highlights the core scientific failure: Science progresses by learning from mistakes and refining what counts as a "worthy" hypothesis. Post-1970s theoretical physics has not done this; instead, it continues guessing "nice" mathematics without basis, producing thousands of falsifiable but ultimately falsified predictions. Pre-1970s physics successfully solved real problems and made correct predictions (e.g., neutrino masses, Higgs boson); since then, the method of generating hypotheses via mathematical beauty or speculation has failed to yield confirmed breakthroughs, yet the community refuses to update its standards. The scientific method is misunderstood: it is not just "make a hypothesis and test it." Disciplines learn quality standards from past failures (e.g., random doomsday predictions are dismissed as unscientific because we know they waste time). Theoretical physics has stopped learning in this way for foundational questions. Many subfields (e.g., high-temperature superconductors, quantum information) are doing "normal science" productively, but the problem is concentrated in areas that invent superfluous, evidence-free hypotheses with no pressing data or consistency issues to solve. Example with dark matter: Solid evidence exists for it, and simple models suffice, but researchers unnecessarily complicate it with new "dark sectors," fifth forces, etc., that add extra assumptions and soon get ruled out—violating principles of parsimony. She compares it to the replication crisis in psychology (p-value hacking and irreproducible results), noting that psychology at least attempted reforms, while physics has doubled down on piling up unfruitful guesses (extra dimensions, multiverses, etc.). She proposes a solution: Journals and reviewers should adopt stricter guidelines—e.g., only publish papers where hypotheses use the minimal necessary assumptions and actually solve a real consistency or explanatory problem, rather than mathematical fiction. This could eliminate ~99% of the issue quickly, though journals resist due to incentives around publication volume and citations. The field has turned into a self-perpetuating system of producing and rewarding mathematical fiction instead of evidence-driven progress. Public exposure and pressure for reform are needed, even if it makes people uncomfortable. This is quite an important and challenging vent from Ms Hossenfelder. Good luck to her in her new independent role. @ericweinstein

More of this, please.😂

Nearshoring via Silicon: Using Robotics as a Service (RaaS) to Bring Production Home linkedin.com/pulse/nearshor… via @LinkedIn

Documentary: non-technical founder discovers Claude Code

ok, this is pretty some pretty good us of AI: 👏

Congrats to the @Neuralink team for helping many people who have lost use of their body with our Telepathy implant that enables computer use simply by thinking! The next generation Neuralink cybernetic augment with 3X capability will be ready later this year. Pending regulatory approval, we are also ready to do our first Blindsight augment that will enable those who have even complete loss of vision to see in low resolution at first, leading to high resolution over time.

Neuralink @neuralink

9 months ago

We now have 21 participants enrolled in trials worldwide. Check out how our Neuralnauts are driving BCI technology forward. neuralink.com/updates/two-ye…

969 2K 11K 20.3M 1K

SAIA Agrobotics has secured €10 million in funding. The company recently completed the world's first automated greenhouse, claiming 20% yield increases and 50% labor cost reductions with over 99% harvesting accuracy. #robotics #automation #agriculture lnkd.in/gsvuy_tu

@AmericanALCHMY @AlchemyAmerican He lost me at the "Nordics", a super advanced race, using us for slave labour. While we're poised to elimate most human labour with in 5 years.

@0xAbhiP 🤣

@DefazioIvano this is false