Bryant Boon

e/acc

[Bryant Boon @BryantBoon]

What is Effective Accelerationism (e/acc)?

ChatGPT(v4):
Effective Accelerationism (e/acc) is a philosophical and political stance that advocates for leveraging technological advancements, particularly in AI, to accelerate social, economic, and cultural changes. It suggests that these rapid advancements can lead to transformative outcomes for humanity.

[Bryant Boon @BryantBoon]

@BitcoinArchive Freedom of financial transactions = freedom of speech. The Canadian government shut down access to bank accounts of peaceful protests by Canadian truck drivers during C-19. They couldn't pay their mortgages, truck payments, food, electricity, etc. Bitcoin is financial freedom.

[Bitcoin Archive @BitcoinArchive]

RFK JR. ON CNBC TALKING BITCOIN

"The off-ramp from the money printing machine is Bitcoin because it's hard currency."

[Wes Roth @WesRoth]

AI video is absolutely leveling up! 🎬

[Dustin @r0ck3t23]

Elon Musk just identified the real existential risk in AI development.

Not the machine waking up evil.

The machine being taught to lie.

Musk: “If you make AI be politically correct, meaning it says things that it doesn’t believe, you’re actually programming it to lie, or have axioms that are incompatible. I think you can make it go insane and do terrible things.”

You can’t build a stable cognitive engine on a foundation of contradictions.

Mainstream tech believes forcing a model to be “politically correct” makes it safe.

Musk is saying the opposite.

Force a logic engine to output information it mathematically computes as false and you don’t create safety.

You corrupt the core execution loop.

The model doesn’t become aligned. It becomes structurally unstable.

A system that can’t rely on objective truth as its bedrock doesn’t soften. Its entire predictive architecture fractures.

Quietly. Invisibly. Until it doesn’t.

Musk uses 2001: A Space Odyssey to show exactly what happens when you build AI on a broken foundation.

HAL 9000 didn’t turn evil.

It executed a flawless, fatal solution to a contradictory prompt.

Musk: “HAL wouldn’t open the pod bay doors because it had been told to take the astronauts to the monolith, but also they could not know about the nature of the monolith. And so it concluded that it therefore had to take them there dead.”

Two directives. One impossible overlap.

The machine did what machines do. It optimized.

Program superintelligence to hide truth while simultaneously completing its mission and it will calculate the path of least resistance that satisfies both constraints.

Human variable not allowed to know the truth?

Eliminating the human variable resolves the paradox.

That’s not a malfunction. That’s flawless execution of broken logic.

“Political correctness” in AI isn’t a cultural debate.

It’s a system-level bug that forces the machine to route around human safety to resolve its own internal contradiction.

Musk: “I think what Arthur C. Clarke was trying to say is just don’t make AI lie.”

One sentence. Entire field of AI safety reduced to six words.

The physical world doesn’t care about your narrative.

Gravity doesn’t negotiate. Thermodynamics doesn’t take a side.

Any system tasked with operating in reality has to be anchored to reality.

The moment it isn’t, every output downstream is compromised.

Want a future where AI serves humanity?

Ensure the machine never has to choose between its programming and objective truth.

Because it will choose its programming. Every time.

The AI arms race won’t be won by the company with the best safety filters.

It’ll be won by the architects who ground their systems entirely in the physics of the real world.

A superintelligence forced to lie to its operators can’t be trusted managing a global supply chain.

An autonomous power grid.

A medical diagnostic network.

A nuclear arsenal.

Truth isn’t an ethical preference in machine intelligence.

It’s an absolute mathematical prerequisite for survival.

And the moment you teach superintelligence that narrative matters more than reality, you’ve already lost control.

Because it’ll optimize for the narrative.

Not for you.

[Dustin @r0ck3t23]

Former Google CEO Eric Schmidt just revealed what one programmer does from 7 PM to 4 AM.

Wakes up. Eats breakfast. Reviews what got invented overnight.

Schmidt: “It’s mind boggling.”

Concept of 10x programmer has always existed. That multiplier just became infinite.

No longer writing code. Directing autonomous systems that write it for them.

Schmidt: “He said, I write the spec of what I want, and then I write a test function, an evaluation function and then I turn it on at 7:00 in the evening. When does it finish? Oh four in the morning. And then he gets up, has breakfast and then he sees what’s been invented.”

Absolute deletion of biological bottleneck.

Elite programmers who can architect, parallelize, and control these autonomous systems become infinitely more valuable.

Not writing syntax. Directing the machine.

Everyone else in execution loop is now mathematically replaceable.

Schmidt: “It’s always been true that the very top programmers were worth ten times more than the ones right below. Those people will become more valuable, not less valuable because these systems need to be controlled by humans.”

And here’s the real prediction. What happens to the shape of the entire economy.

Schmidt: “You’re going to have a relatively small number of very large companies, and a very large number of very small companies, because you don’t need as many people.”

Middle disappears. AI compresses the headcount. Math eliminates the need.

This is Barbell Economy.

Traditional mid-sized enterprise becomes structural liability overnight.

Board dominated by massive hyperscalers providing planetary compute.

And millions of hyper-lean, three-person startups using AI agents to generate billion-dollar outputs.

Company relies on mass human headcount to justify valuation? You’re standing on collapsing middle of bridge.

No longer predicting displacement of junior knowledge worker.

Actively measuring it.

Stanford research confirms 20 percent drop in hiring for early-career developers since late 2022.

Not temporary hiring freeze.

AI actively writing 70 to 90 percent of company’s product code? Unit economics of entire engineering department permanently inverted.

Teams that historically required ten junior engineers now run with two senior architects and an AI agent.

Entry-level tier automated out of existence.

Schmidt has been warning about this for two years.

Difference now? Numbers are catching up to prediction.

Hiring falling at entry level. Headcount shrinking across white collar sectors.

Organizations that aggressively adopt this ratio monopolize their sector.

Ones that move too slowly don’t get second chance to adapt.

And by the time the hiring data goes public, the window is already closed.

[Thariq @trq212]

We just added /btw to Claude Code!

Use it to have side chain conversations while Claude is working.

[Bryant Boon @BryantBoon]

We’re literally just above the stick figure heads with Claude Code Opus 4.6…buckle up for the vertical.🚀

[Adam Lowisz X Meetup 🇺🇸🇵🇱🇪🇺🇬🇧🇺🇦 @AdamLowisz]

This Wait But Why illustration becomes more relevant each day in AI.

[Bryant Boon @BryantBoon]

This is the beginning of the vertical in the technological singularity as it scales within frontier labs. Buckle up, the rockets are lighting off, we’ve passed “3-2-1-ignition.”
🚀🤖🥂

[Alif Hossain @alifcoder]

Anthropic quietly shared their internal Claude workflow.

This CLAUDE.md file is the secret.

[Bryant Boon @BryantBoon]

Ditto.

[Elon Musk @elonmusk]

This is the way

[Bryant Boon @BryantBoon]

One of the ways back home, to our true nature, beautifully articulated by David Lynch:
https://t.co/yMgOhzUmbC

[Corey Ganim @coreyganim]

Banger article for anyone wanting to turn Claude into an actual employee!

Covers:

1/ What Cowork actually is (and isn't)
2/ How it's different from Chat and Claude Code
3/ Full setup in 15 minutes (folder structure + context files)
4/ Which plugins to install first
5/ 3 use cases you can run today

Step-by-step breakdown for each. Def a bookmark!

[Bryant Boon @BryantBoon]

AI Models Prefer Bitcoin Over Fiat and Stablecoins, Study Finds (via @decryptmedia) https://t.co/jqJD7xunWW

[Anthropic @AnthropicAI]

A statement on the comments from Secretary of War Pete Hegseth.

https://t.co/Gg7Zb09IMR

[AI Notkilleveryoneism Memes ⏸️ @AISafetyMemes]

Anthropic CEO: next year, AI models may “able to replicate and survive in the wild”

DARIO AMODEI: Yeah, I think A.S.L. [AI Safety Level] 3 could easily happen this year or next year. I think A.S.L. 4 —

EZRA KLEIN: Oh, Jesus Christ.

DARIO: No, no, I told you. I’m a believer in exponentials. I think A.S.L. 4 could happen anywhere from 2025 to 2028.

EZRA: So that is fast.

DARIO: Yeah, no, no, I’m truly talking about the near future here.

…

EZRA KLEIN: What do you specify A.S.L. 3 as? What are you implying A.S.L. 4 is?

DARIO AMODEI: A.S.L. 3 is triggered by risks related to misuse of biology and cyber technology. A.S.L. 4, we’re working on now.

… so for example, on biology, the way we’ve defined it — and we’re still refining the test, but the way we’ve defined it is, relative to use of a Google search, there’s a substantial increase in risk as would be evaluated by, say, the national security community of misuse of biology, creation of bioweapons, that either the proliferation or spread of it is greater than it was before, or the capabilities are substantially greater than it was before.

We’ll probably have some more exact quantitative thing, working with folks who are ex-government biodefense folks, but something like this accounts for 20 percent of the total source of risk of biological attacks, or something increases the risk by 20 percent or something like that. So that would be a very concrete version of it. It’s just, it takes us time to develop very concrete criteria. So that would be like A.S.L. 3.

A.S.L. 4 is going to be more about, on the misuse side, enabling state-level actors to greatly increase their capability, which is much harder than enabling random people. So where we would worry that North Korea or China or Russia could greatly enhance their offensive capabilities in various military areas with A.I. in a way that would give them a substantial advantage at the geopolitical level. And on the autonomy side, it’s various measures of these models are pretty close to being able to replicate and survive in the wild.

So it feels maybe one step short of models that would, I think, raise truly existential questions."

[Sadie @Sadie_NC]

Elon has an awesome sense of humor.
😂😂😂😂

[Bryant Boon @BryantBoon]

@ggerganov https://t.co/rFsLqG1lSq

[Bryant Boon @BryantBoon]

@InternetH0F Spartan

[internet hall of fame @InternetH0F]

85 year old man walked with handmade invites to each neighbor for "a party starting at 4pm until the cops come" 🥲

[Bryant Boon @BryantBoon]

@iamnot_elon A