lurker

They are writing another scenario called “AI 2030” (which we already discussed here) so I wouldn’t be surprised if they decide to ignore the elephant in the room

As expected. It’s grifting the whole way down, never about “safety” but always about money

Then hand me that hammer and let’s get to smashing those data centres

“We have to pick between the climate or AI”

No we don’t??? One problem directly affects the other. Stopping AI data centre build-out helps with stopping climate change.

I could’ve sworn I posted this here but apparently not: the first AI winter in the 1960s-70s which is pretty relevant to today

well great now I’m thinking about this

You’re telling me that the Autism Spectrum is a spectrum and not just the quirky thing people have?

The AI safety company when they actually have to make their AIs safe instead of just making vague suggestions

AGI’s ETA: Delayed (again) due to technical difficulties

came across this one when doomscrolling, pretty good article with healthy doses of skepticism. out of three commenters, one appears to be a rationalist (based off the “empirical evidence” and “instrumental convergence” they mention) who tries to argue that we don’t actually need human-like AI for paperclip maxxing, even though every single AI doom argument is about smart-as-a-human and better AIs. Just comes off as goalpost moving

More on OpenAI’s financial situation

Appears so. Their doomposting shot them in the foot so they have to backpeddle

that the level of capability displayed there is widely available from other models (including OpenAI’s GPT-5.5)

please god let them block ChatGPT access like they did with Fable. it would be so fucking funny