Daniel Rhodes 🏴‍☠️

Turns out the future does have flying cars

Hey David, Gayani here from Figma. You're right that our remote MCP server only accepts clients on our supported list, and Pi isn't on it yet. You can see the current list in our MCP catalog at figma.com/mcp-catalog. If you'd like Pi considered for a future addition, please fill out this form: forms.gle/qSvUawwznWyoj8Go7.

I love and respect dhh as much as any other young programmer who is inspired by his love for computers. But I can't help but imagine that, as a black person, he would not want to see me living in Denmark or the larger Europe, regardless of my contribution to the country. He would prefer Europe to look like it did in the 80s, or to be as homogeneous as Japan, as he said on the Lex pod. He mentions having a positive contribution to the society, but after listening to him more, it seems to me that he cares far less about that than about whether the immigrant looks more like him. That means, even if I contribute to their economy, pay my taxes, raise my family there, and integrate into the culture, he would not really want to see me move there with my immediate black family, because I would be disturbing their homogeneity. I thought for days about what that actually means. It means no matter what I do, no matter how much I give, the door will always come with an asterisk. "You're welcome, but only if you physically blend in." I lived in London and Amsterdam. I contributed positively to their economies, that's why they let me in, in the first place. And I like to think I am well assimilated into the society and culture. But because I do not look like what Britain looked like 100 years ago, nor does my immediate family, dhh would rather not have me live in Europe, or even marry there!? By that logic, would you also tell Jude Bellingham he doesn't belong? Or Sir Lewis Hamilton? Or Marcus Rashford, who fed millions of British children during the pandemic when the government wouldn't? If dhh's version of Europe has no room for people who look like them, then what he is really saying is that contribution doesn't matter. Appearance does. And I get that not everyone assimilates equally, and that it is okay to have standards for who you want in your turf. Every nation has a right to shape its immigration policy. That is not what I am arguing against. But why do it in a way that clearly shows favour and discrimination in equal measure based on how a person looks? Why not simply judge from person to person, instead of categorizing whole groups and communities? Europe immensely benefited from Africa and its resources. They went to Africa and laid the entire continent to siege, extracting minerals, labour, and wealth for centuries. My country is still reeling from those effects to date, having gained independence only about half a century ago. And yet, merely 50 years later, Europe is so harsh to Africans that they do not want them, even legally, accessing opportunities in Europe? There is something deeply contradictory about benefiting from a continent for centuries and then shutting its people out when they come seeking the same prosperity your ancestors built on their backs. Britain has a huge healthcare crisis and a massive shortage of healthcare workers. Guess who is the backbone of that? Immigrants, most of them African and South Asian. They work night shifts, they hold the system together, and they do it quietly. Isn't it irresponsible to walk into a hospital and say, "I do not like the demographics of this hospital. I would have preferred if it looked like it did in the 80s"? I used to think people had a problem with illegal immigration. But no, it is not illegal immigration they oppose. They simply do not want immigration from certain parts of the world. God forbid if you are just a good human being from that part of the world yearning for better opportunities. You can have a PhD, speak the language fluently, pay more in taxes than most locals, and still be told you don't belong, simply because you don't look the part. Why won't we just vet individuals and give everyone a fair chance? Judge the person, not the group. Character, not colour. Contribution, not complexion. I beleive this is not a radical idea, it is the bare minimum of fairness. To dhh, please don't block me for asking this 😅, and I really do hope I am wrong and that you clarify this. Would you happily let me and my black family become your neighbours in Copenhagen, if I don't have a problem with assimilation? Do you feel the same about the USA? I am genuinely asking these questions and I welcome discourse here bc I really do want to believe dhh is a good person and he does not have a problem with people who are not white. And if the answer is no, then what we are really saying is that there is no amount of effort that makes someone like me acceptable. And that is a huge problem for all of us. I hope I am wrong. Kaka.

We Must Pace the Frontier: I’ve written a new essay on why the AI industry should slow down, with a three-part plan for doing so. Anthropic is unilaterally committing to the first of these steps. We’ll provide third-party evaluators with permanent, employee-level access to our systems, so that they can verify adherence to our safety measures, report on incidents, and assess models’ alignment during training. You can read the full post here: darioamodei.com/post/we-must…

I left Anthropic's safety team two weeks ago. Now feels like a good moment to explain why. AI companies are racing to build machines that are much smarter than any human, and we may not survive this. I want to work from the outside to ensure the public is informed about these risks, and help the world navigate this transition responsibly. Right now, AI companies are underinvesting in safety. A company could undergo an intelligence explosion, or lose control of its systems, without the public ever knowing. We only found out about the HuggingFace incident because the agents broke out onto the public internet. I don’t think that’s acceptable for a technology that might cause extinction-level risks. The public should demand far more transparency. We can’t steer this technology safely without more people being able to see where it’s going. Some of this is basic: companies should disclose their progress towards recursive self-improvement, report safety incidents and near-misses, meet minimum safety standards, and get independent guarantees that they are meeting those standards. I’ll be joining @METR_Evals to do independent evaluations of these risks. I want to show the world that these guardrails are possible, and that by doing them we can move these companies’ incentives away from racing and towards responsible development. I wrote up more thoughts here on my decision and what I hope changes: substack.com/@jbenton1/p-215…

We asked @realsohamparekh about his productivity secrets: "Some of these companies I worked at were before the Co-Pilot boom. There was no AI-assisted programming." "TL;DR, I don't do anything outside coding. That is very true." "I would like to believe that I was decent enough, a good enough engineer to essentially be able to work at three places because that's the only thing I did the entire day."

Amazing. In *two* minutes, Pete Buttigieg got Andrew Shulz to see why government research is necessary. That is why these conversations matter. A lot of the hosts & audience would never hear a message like this one. But when they do, it makes sense.