Manuel’

[Klonopin Centaur @facetedcarapace]

holy shit there is nothing that can prepare you for when they cut to the interview

[Manuel’ @Emmy_wezzy]

@myersfarm_ PETAs nightmare.

[Manuel’ @Emmy_wezzy]

@Yvicue_ I hope you findddd some peace of mind.

[Manuel’ @Emmy_wezzy]

@Polymarket Profit? Nahh, we don't do that here.

[Manuel’ @Emmy_wezzy]

Or maybe it just needs a clearer explanation.

[🐾 @pawcide]

U try supporting local businesses and a latte is $18

[Manuel’ @Emmy_wezzy]

Imagination…

[LUCλ 🦉 @tolucafog]

WHATS THE POINT

[Manuel’ @Emmy_wezzy]

It’s better not to ship a product that has this temporary high and eventually becomes slop.

[Zain Manji @ZainManji]

Yo Muse randomly called me Arjun today and then started gaslighting me and stereotyping me

[Manuel’ @Emmy_wezzy]

Now you just need a few months to recover from the psychological toll.

[re.t.no @rtnangg]

finally... finally i'm free... after 23 days live inside raskolnikov's head

[Manuel’ @Emmy_wezzy]

@DechampsAlan A beautiful shithole. St. Lawrence Market is the exception though.

[Tripp @TrippThe3rd]

The day we have this conversation, we may break the internet.

[Manuel’ @Emmy_wezzy]

Self-serving vs empathy.

[Bloomberg @business]

Microsoft co-founder Bill Gates warned that artificial intelligence is a “powerful enough” tool to kill off a substantial portion of humanity, joining a growing chorus of tech leaders and employees calling attention to AI’s existential risks. Silicon Valley has escalated warnings about the potential for catastrophic harms from AI as the technology rapidly improves.

Read more here: https://t.co/2MF1b9pXea

📷: David Paul Morris/Bloomberg

[Manuel’ @Emmy_wezzy]

Greed is innate. Newer car, better fragrance, always something. The paradox? The same restlessness that keeps us unsatisfied as individuals is what drives progress as a society. Our biggest flaw might also be our engine.

[Tina Turtle 🐢 @tinaturttle]

Ngl a Pixar movie will humble you

[Rony @Ronycoder]

In 1983, a BBC interviewer asked Richard Feynman why two magnets push each other apart and he refused to answer it.

What he did instead is the best seven minutes on thinking ever filmed.

Bookmark & watch today, no matter what.

[Andrew Ng @AndrewYNg]

The loudest voices stoking fears about AI dangers have made tremendous headway in the past two weeks. AI technology has not taken some unexpected, dangerous turn, but the hype around it — propelled by what appears to be a well orchestrated PR campaign — has drummed up considerable fear. I worry that it represents a setback for our field.

I have written frequently that fears of AI are overhyped. AI’s capabilities can be uncannily human-like and unpredictable, and it’s rational to worry when people who are directly involved express concerns. But I see the problems as a sign of the engineering work that ahead, rather than insurmountable barriers or the sky falling. AI technology continues to advance — which is a good thing! — but technical advances, poorly understood by the public, give those who seek to generate hype repeated opportunities to do so.

First, I don’t see any step up in the risk of human extinction from AI compared to a few months ago. The theories about this remain the same fantastical, science fiction scenarios as a few months ago. The biggest change in AI risk is its cybersecurity capabilities — a topic which we should take seriously — but this, too, will not lead to the end of the world.

The most notable recent event leading to increased fear was when an OpenAI team deployed an agent swarm that hacked into Hugging Face. Much of the popular press contained significant hype. For example, some publications reported that a swarm of 1,200 agents carried out the attack. While this was technically accurate, as I write this, I have about 1,300 processes running on my laptop. Yes, the ability to get large swarms of agents to work in parallel on a task is a significant technical advance, And, in computing, many processes run at the same time. So this shouldn’t be seen as some magical capability.

Additionally, OpenAI’s buggy sandboxing and monitoring processes were key to enabling this incident. Fixing these bugs and putting in place improved monitoring would be appropriate fixes, not pausing AI. There are many well known ways to attack software systems. The main advantage of AI agents is that they are relentless. They will tirelessly try many tactics — and have the patience to chain vulnerabilities together — that previously would have taken an infeasible amount of human effort. But in the long term, I believe the advantage will lie with defenders (because they have more information with which to identify bugs, which they can fix), but the cyber-threat landscape has changed significantly. There are still bottlenecks to identifying and exploiting a vulnerability. AI agents still have to try a lot of things to see what works, and taking these actions takes time and might be detected by defenders. This is why, even though it is now easy to obtain versions of leading open weight models that have had their guardrails removed or weakened, so they will not refuse to try to execute cyber attacks, the world has not ended.

I am also concerned about the anthropomorphization of AI in a lot of reporting, where LLMs and agents are unnecessarily treated as if they were people. If I wield a hammer, miss a nail, and accidentally dent the wall, it’s not the fault of the hammer. The problem lies in how I used the hammer. Similarly, if I prompt an agent and it hacks into someone else’s system, the responsibility lies with me, not the agent.

Of course, we want to build systems that are as safe and predictable as possible. (For example, an unsafe hammer would be one whose head randomly flies off under normal use.) Today’s agentic systems are not predictable, but I see no reason why, by applying sound engineering practices, we won’t be able to make them extremely safe to use. One new element in the forecasts of AI-enabled doom is AI companies disclaiming responsibility for their own products. “I didn’t do it; my out-of-control agent did!” There’s a balance to be struck between the responsibility of the tool maker and the tool user, but when something goes wrong, let’s hold the people building and/or using the hammer responsible, rather than the hammer. (By the way, if you’re worried about AI bioweapon risk, David Bellamy has a great post on why this, too, is overhyped. Briefly, the bottleneck in building a bioweapon is not intelligence, but lab work and manufacturing.)

Pausing AI progress will create much more harm than benefit. First, our adversaries will certainly not slow down. Second, engineering requires discovering problems empirically so we can fix them. If we pause AI by a decade, we will also delay finding and implementing safety engineering fixes by about the same duration.

Of course, the incentive to stoke fears — for regulatory capture, to garner attention, or to make one’s technology seem more powerful — remains the same as before. Disclaiming responsibility is a new one. Taking a hard technical look at the actual risks however, I see little factual basis for the degree of fear that’s been stoked up. We still have hard research and engineering work ahead to improve AI safety, but the beneficial applications continue to vastly outweigh the risks, and we should keep building.

[Original text (with links): https://t.co/jni2tWazAH ]

[Manuel’ @Emmy_wezzy]

Not some anti-AI Luddite prick, but damn if this isn’t the most painfully accurate read of the whole goddamn circus. 😂

[Disgraced Propagandist @DisgracedProp]

So good

[Manuel’ @Emmy_wezzy]

@RayDalio I want your viewpoint on this; it most likely signals an indicative recession.

[Aaron Rupar @atrupar]

SANCHEZ: Back in 2022, you argued giving Americans $1,400 checks under Biden's American Rescue Plan fueled 'waste and inflation.' Now you support Trump giving more than 3 times that amount. How is that consistent?

REP. BUDDY CARTER: It's apples and oranges

SANCHEZ: How exactly? Are you just supportive now because the president is a Republican?

[Manuel’ @Emmy_wezzy]

@Praiisee_ I mean we’re more like half side of a toasted bread. Can’t reverse the golden brown but still literally cooked.