This is golden: https://soundcloud.com/ericwbailey/rfc-2119
TechTakes
Big brain tech dude got yet another clueless take over at HackerNews etc? Here's the place to vent. Orange site, VC foolishness, all welcome.
This is not debate club. Unless it’s amusing debate.
For actually-good tech, you want our NotAwfulTech community
God I remember having to cite RFC at other vendors when I worked in support and it was never not a pain in the ass to try and find the right line that described the appropriate feature. And then when I was done I knew I sounded like this even as I hit send anyway.
Poor rich guy, forced by the leftmost party available to support the party that is now constructing concentration camps.
https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swicg/2025Feb/0025.html
found this while stalking @self@awful.systems's mastodon, the people working on ActivityPub want to shoehorn Ai into it somehow.
Dr. Abeba Birhane got an AI True Believer^tm^ email recently, and shared it on Bluesky:
You want my opinion, I fully support acausal robot deicide, and think AI rights advocates can go fuck themselves.
So, you know Ross Scott, the Stop Killing Games guy?
About 2 years ago he actually interviewed Yudkowsky.
The context being that Ross discussed his article on one of his monthly streams, and expressed skepticism that there was any threat at all from AI.
Yudkowsky got wind of his skepticism, and reached out to Ross to do a discussion with him about the topic. He also requested that Ross not do any research on him.
And here it is...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hxsAuxswOvM
I can't say I actually recommend watching it, because Yudkowsky spends the first 40 minutes of the discussion refusing to answer the question "So what is GPT-4, anyway?" (It's not exactly that question, but it's pretty close).
I don't know what they discussed afterwards because I stopped watching it after that, but, well, it's a thing that exists.
The comments are fun. Here's the pinned comment, authored by the video's author:
I'm not the best at thinking on the fly, so here are two key points I tried to make that got a little lost in the discussion:
1. I think our entire disagreement rests on Eliezer seeing increasingly refined AI conclusively making the jump to actual intelligence, whereas I do not see that. I only see software that mimics many observable characteristics of intelligence and gets better at it the more it's refined.
2. My main point of the stuff about real v. fake + biological v. machine evolution was only to say that just because a process shares some characteristics with another one, other emergent properties aren't necessarily shared also. In many cases, they aren't. This strikes me as the case for human intelligence v. machine learning.
MY CONCLUSION
By the end, I honestly couldn't tell if he was making a faith-based argument that increasingly refined AI will lead to true intelligence, despite being unsubstantiated OR if he did substantiate it and I was just too dumb to connect the dots. Maybe some of you can figure it out!
Here's my favourite:
"Ooh Ross making an interview!"
5 minutes in
"Ooh Ross is making an interview Neil Breen of AI".
Neil Breen of AI
ahahahaha oh shit
Yudkowsky got wind of his skepticism, and reached out to Ross to do a discussion with him about the topic. He also requested that Ross not do any research on him.
I pinky promise I’m an expert! no you’re not allowed to check my credentials, the fuck?
I think we mocked this one back when it came out on /r/sneerclub, but I can't find the thread. In general, I recall Yudkowsky went on a mini-podcast tour a few years back. I think the general trend was that he didn't interview that well, even by lesswrong's own standards. He tended to simultaneously assume too much background familiarity with his writing such that anyone not already familiar with it would be lost and fail to add anything actually new for anyone already familiar with his writing. And lots of circular arguments and repetitious discussion with the hosts. I guess that's the downside of hanging around within your own echo chamber blog for decades instead of engaging with wider academia.
Have any of the big companies released a real definition of what they mean by AGI? Because I think the meme potential of these leaked documents is being slept on.
The definition of AGI being achieved agreed on between Microsoft and OpenAI in 2023 is just: when OpenAI makes a product that raises $100B.
Seems like a fun way to shut down all the low quality philsophical wankery. Oh, AGI? You just mean $100B profit, right? That's what your lord and savior Altman means.
Maybe even something like a cloud to butt browser extension? AGI -> $100B in OpenAI profits
"What $100B in OpenAI Profits Means for the Future of Humanity"
I'm sure someone can come up with something better, but I think there's some potential here.
Found a piece which caught my attention: Resisting the Techno-Fascist Takeover: Are We Ready for Decomputing?
You want my personal opinion, the basic idea of "decomputing" that author Dan McQuillan is putting forward is likely gonna gain plenty of traction. The Trump administration more generally and DOGE more specifically have thoroughly undermined any notion of tech being an apolitical force, so arguing against the politics inherent to AI is gonna be an easier sell.
Ed Zitron's planning a follow-up to "The Subprime AI Crisis":
(Its gonna be a premium column, BTW)
EDIT: Swapped the image for one that's easier-to-read
Rainbow, an Italian animation studio known for making Winx Club, is looking to hire a prompt engineer :-) Had I been Italian I would be considering applying if only to stop them from trying to sell NFTs and whitewashing their characters.
Alright that's it: anime streaming needs to return to fansubbing (note: this link contains a skintight anime bosom so don't open it in front of your boss unless your boss is chill)
https://bsky.app/profile/pixeldoesthings.bsky.social/post/3lswcbtkwec2t
Micro-sneer, inspired by this article on Swedish public service broadcasting
https://www.svt.se/nyheter/inrikes/anna-bjorklund-folk-uppfattar-barn-som-valdigt-jobbiga
The background is that the center-RIGHT gov of Sweden is gonna put up an investigation ("utredning") into why people aren't getting (the RIGHT kind of) kids. Nothing new there, simply the same culture war fretting already percolating in the anglosphere.
Finland already has an investigation ongoing, and the spokesperson there raises the point that one societal change that's happened in the last 25 years is... social media.
Wouldn't it be delicious if it could be proved that Facebook and Twitter and Tiktok are the reasons people don't get into relationships and have kids? Eat that, Elon!
Youtube channel We're In Hell has an exploration of the history of computers in war. As usual for this channel, it's not a fun watch, but it does show the absurdity of war and AI fairly well.