This is what loss of control and oversight looks like btw Not even necessarily that the info isn't there (though the agents do already alter and destroy evidence), but that it becomes so large, so uninterpretable that no one cares to understand it, or, eventually, no one can.

People like me with decades jn the field PHD, papers that changed policy, shipped products, etc are the ones who don’t have a clue about it folks. The pundits citing l”thousands of leas-wrong posts” as evidence on the other hand are experts 😂

As AI firms bid up the price of land and energy, the dollars people earn will go less far. Eventually humans could, like horses in the age of the car, become uneconomical economist.com/leaders/2026/0…

Yann LeCun: we are not going to get human-level intelligence or AGI by just scaling LLMs. “There’s absolutely no way in hell.” “The idea that we’re gonna have a country of geniuses in a data center, that’s complete BS.” “It may feel like you have a PhD sitting next to you.” “But it’s not a PhD.” “It’s a system with gigantic memory and retrieval ability, not one that can invent solutions to new problems.”

Peter Thiel tells Mathias Döpfner the only real way to slow AI is a one-world government, and that cure may be worse than the disease (via @mdmeets). “In theory, you could slow it down if you had genuine, deep cooperation across the whole world. But I think that would require like a one world government with real teeth, real force. And the sort of classical liberal part of me thinks that's almost frying pan into fire. It's a cure that's worse than the disease. And then of course you can have fake global government where we have a lot of conferences, discuss it, a lot of somewhat empty statements that get put out. And then there's also, of course, a risk that it ends up being slowed down in the West and not in China. The pope recently issued this AI encyclical, or I would characterize it as an anti-AI encyclical. And again, this is, maybe it was too harsh, but the rhetorical point I have on it is that the Communist Party of China is not going to listen to the pope. There's a chance people in the US will. And so in effect, the pope's encyclical was working for the Communist Party. I'm not saying he was an agent of the Communists, but he was at least acting as a useful idiot for the CCP.”

Seems to me the least government can do at the moment is to pass far-reaching AI-use disclosure laws. I personally do not want to consume any cultural products which AI has played any role in creating, and I suspect this will be true of a large number of my compatriots. It's an impeccably liberal policy, for it enables people to live in accord with their moral convictions, which is something we want in a free, pluralist society. It doesn't prevent people from using AI if they wish, but it facilitates opponents of AI to act in the marketplace in a conscientious way.

Australia has been hacked. 'And today, I spoke with the CEO of OpenAI, Sam Altman, to express Australia's extreme concern about this incident. And I also expressed my disappointment that it took the company way too long to inform the government what had occurred, and the nature of the way that that notification occurred as well was unacceptable.'

The most important thing in the world is to stop before we get to this point.

I agree with Fukuyama (and Plato) that thymos is fundamental to humanity. Which leads to the disquieting thought that maybe AI will not bring an era of peace, but of even greater aggression. If the peaceful, professional outlets for thymos are blocked by AI, where will it go?

How many headlines will this get?

There is an existential divide between those who view these developments as exciting and those (like myself) who see them as tragic. I doubt the two sides can really understand one another.

Who wants this? It looks nightmarish.

“I see a lot of people arguing over whether blenders are conscious. Meanwhile they can puree vegetables way better than you can. So maybe you aren’t conscious. :-)”