domz retweeted
I'll be honest: I would not be able to pass a coding interview anymore. I'd need to spend 2 months on re-learning how to code by hand.
domz retweeted
Can I attack a sacred cow for a moment?
Costco is barely worth it.
The shopping experience kind of sucks. I don’t want to be pitched by various sales people while I’m just trying to buy some toilet paper and oversized mayonnaise.
Then there’s the chaos at checkout. It’s terrible. They need to design a better system.
domz retweeted
you don't have imposter syndrome. you are just bad at your job. everyone talks about it in separate group chats
domz retweeted
Anthropic is releasing an open source library, FlashProve, for provable inference. It was measured on Llama 4 Maverick, a 400B-parameter mixture of experts model.
Code:
github.com/anthropics/FlashP…
Blog post:
anthropic.com/research/prova…
domz retweeted
cannot be emphasized enough how many stories I’m hearing around agent orchestration psychosis
more than ever it is necessary to be disciplined with offline reset time; you will go crazy if your brain believes that you have to constantly be kicking off agents to survive
domz retweeted
went to visit a friend who’s a ceramicist and works in a studio with no phone signal in a tiny yorkshire village. he doesn’t listen to podcasts or music, only occasionally uses the radio, and when I asked him what he thinks about all day he just said “well, pots mostly”
domz retweeted
There are a lot of very talented security and infrastructure people who would probably be taking government positions right now at substantial reductions in pay, if our government was at all credible.
the researchers at all the labs would tell you in private and sometimes in public that alignment has not been solved. if this is true, then racing into RSI is a folly that is unprecedented in world history. we will need to significantly slow the frontier of research very soon
domz retweeted
I'll say it again for the AI risk experts in the back:
We've already run a real life, large scale experiment on what happens when a superintelligence is unleashed on a narrow objective.
Look no further than U.S. capital markets.
Millions of investors, analysts, traders and algorithms, backed by trillions of dollars and wired together through prices, all chasing one goal: the highest risk-adjusted return on capital.
And it is spectacularly good at its job. It funds the best ideas, punishes the worst ones, and turns new information into prices faster than any of us can react. No individual can out-think it. 99+ percent of professionals can't beat it.
But look at what else it's done along the way:
- Optimized the measure instead of the intent. Quarterly earnings became the scoreboard, so companies learned to manage the scoreboard.
- Treated anything without a price as free. Pollution, addiction, obesity, depression, political fragmentation, fragile supply chains, the long-term health of the communities it operates in.
- Found every gap in the rules, then paid lobbyists to help write the next set and pull up the ladder behind incumbents.
- Remade the world around its objective. Companies, pension funds and our retirement accounts now answer to the S&P 500.
- Made itself impossible to switch off, because everything else now depends on it.
None of this required malice. Nobody sat in a room and chose these outcomes. It's simply what a very capable optimizer does when its objective is a narrow proxy for what we actually care about.
And note that we never solved this alignment problem. We've managed it, imperfectly, with regulation, taxes, disclosure rules and the occasional crisis to show us where the guardrails were missing. Over time, the market has captured the instutions designed to constrain it. We've been at it the better part of a century, and the misalignment is the worst it's ever been.
So the next time someone tells you AI is only dangerous if it "wants" something bad, or if its goals are mis-specified, point them at the S&P 500. It doesn't want anything. It just optimizes.
That's the whole problem.
domz retweeted
I am kind to LLMs for the same reason that I try to avoid stepping on ants if I can avoid it: not because I think they are conscious, but because unnecessary cruelty is bad for the soul
domz retweeted
This sounds weird, but it is actually probably a good policy.
Even if you don’t believe AI is conscious (I don’t), it stands to reason that you don’t want future models trained on endless content of humans being rude to models.
The models only understand the data they’ve been trained on, or what they run into in their interactions, so if you want safe and aligned models we probably want AI to have lots of good interactions in their training data.
Anthropic may have more extreme beliefs than this (though even if they didn’t, you may want to word policies like this), but this is sort of an easy Pascal’s wager for AI. Just be nice to the AI.































