stewart retweeted
Working with AI requires perpetually operating at the edge of sanity. You have to recalibrate your mental model of AI capabilities and your own job description every few months, without getting delusional about seemingly infinite productivity gains, or feeling threatened by losing what you thought was the uniquely human part of your job, or obsessing over the perfect setup, or losing your mind over the clumsiness and jaggedness of agents, or ...
Maybe AI literacy needs to be less about prompting and more about improving emotional regulation.
stewart retweeted
You bolt awake. What year is it? You ask your wife. Am I retarded? She laughs, "we don't say the R word anymore. Cmon anon, it's time for land acknowledgements". You look closer, she has blue hair and is a man. You are gay
stewart retweeted
If you're top 99th percentile in using and applying LLMs, you will not capture any of the value in the next 5 years, because you are retarded.
Someone more retarded, with business and people skills, will.
stewart retweeted
I do think it's significant that the Tower of Babel is being rebuilt over the biggest tectonic fault in the world.
if you’re an employee of any corporation, in the medium & long term you are effectively generating training data for an ai that will likely replace you.
even if the company fails, your work will still create value as training data.
i know a lot of ppl find this bleak & possibly unpleasant but it’s the truth. & it’s kinda cool to think about. humans were never meant to do jobs that could be automated (we don’t use plow’s anymore). eventually we should all be creating our ai replacements in some sense so that we could live the way we were meant to.
stewart retweeted
A new naturalism will ultimately see intelligence with wide pattern recognition as a complement to human sensing, oriented toward the ‘natural’ world that remains deeply mysterious to us.
stewart retweeted
What would the writing of superintelligent AI sound like? You might expect it to have the characteristics of good human writing — figurative language, high information density, coining new terms, and punchiness — but dialed up to 11. Well, that’s what Claude did, until Anthropic dialed it back recently because of user complaints. It didn’t sound superintelligent to most of us. Instead, the neuralese writing style sounds like a “stupid person’s idea of a smart person”.
Our response to information density and metaphor-laden writing looks something like the cartoon graph I've drawn. Beyond a point, it completely backfires. The reason human writers don’t overdo it isn’t because they aren’t capable, but because they are aware of the reader’s cognitive burden. One of the hardest skills to learn as a writer is to simulate the reader’s experience.
It’s easy to train AI to mimic mediocre human writing. But optimizing it to be (perceived as) good is really hard, and made much harder by the fact that when everyone uses the same few AI models we get tired of their tics very quickly. Most Claudeisms are individually pretty good. I hate that I can’t use “load bearing” in my writing any more. If it weren’t for AI overuse it would be a neat metaphor.
A broader question is whether most tasks in the economy are like chess, where there is a clear performance metric that can be optimized, or whether they’re like writing, where quality is a multidimensional balancing act without clear training signals beyond human mimicry.
stewart retweeted
“Wow seems like Muse Wonder is pretty good, sounds like they caught the frontier”
“Nice I think I saw that too, you gonna try it?”
“No, you?”
“no”
stewart retweeted
I think the single most alarming thing about AI is that Meta is poised to be a major player, and every single thing that Meta has ever done has been an absolute catastrophe for the human species.
stewart retweeted
"The computer was not made in the image of the person," the anthropologist Edwin Hutchins wrote in Cognition in the Wild in 1995. "The computer was made in the image of the formal manipulations of abstract symbols. And the last 30 years of cognitive science can be seen as attempts to remake the person in the image of the computer."
The first time I read this line it felt intuitive, but I think we’re approaching a precipice where this changes, where the computer begins to remake itself through our concepts. Its form factor will shift again. We will more and more encounter computation "in the wild," and our common reference points, the personal computer, the discrete device, or even discrete program, may become only one of its manifestations among many.
stewart retweeted
counterpoint: these storyteller posts go viral for the same reason horoscopes do. everyone sees themselves in the description.
Replying to @adelwu_
startups desperately want people with the taste, technical ability, and independence that can only be developed by spending years doing whatever you want instead of whatever you're told
unfortunately this also produces people who don't want to work for you




















