Sarvesh

Go Gators/ Computer Science Alumnus @UF. Arsenal FC and Avicii forever. Software Developer, Musician; in that order.

[Sarvesh @OneTouchGiroud]

Meanwhile in heaven.
#Avicii #FreddieMercury

[Pope Leo XIV @Pontifex]

In this era of artificial intelligence, it is becoming urgent to distinguish human art from what machines produce. There is an ontological difference, even before an aesthetic one, between art and what a machine can generate through statistical calculation based on millions of images created by others. Algorithms lack the spark of humanity. For this reason, the Church wishes to renew an alliance with artists and cultural institutions to safeguard our humanity.

[Andy Burnham @andyburnham]

Come on City.

[Tomi @Justmoraless]

18 + 97=115😭😭

[Tripp @FullTimeTripp]

The guy fought through Fergie-era referees, Abramhovic-era Chelsea, Cheating City from ‘08 and a stadium debt that handicapped the team for years.

Wenger your legacy will endure more than you know 😤

[Sarvesh @OneTouchGiroud]

@JoshFeldberg What a tweet

[Nick Harris @sportingintel]

Oasis should release: “Sham. Pain. Supernova”

[Sarvesh @OneTouchGiroud]

Pepstein Files S1E1 gonna be a banger! @ManCity, will this premiere on Prime Video? 👀

#PepsteinFiles #mancity

[Sarvesh @OneTouchGiroud]

https://t.co/Kp48ZWQCv5

😭

[Spotify @Spotify]

We're aware of issues temporarily affecting our app. We’re actively working to quickly resolve them.

[Sarvesh @OneTouchGiroud]

@Spotify Good job!

https://t.co/Kp48ZWQCv5

[Sarvesh @OneTouchGiroud]

What a strong statement by PL, wow!!!

[Sarvesh @OneTouchGiroud]

That’s fewer people than the number of lawyers Man City has for the 115

[Manchester City @ManCity]

Tonight's attendance is 1,086.

[Sarvesh @OneTouchGiroud]

@ManCity That’s fewer people than the number of lawyers Man City has for the 115.

[Zohran Kwame Mamdani @ZohranKMamdani]

114

[David Ornstein @David_Ornstein]

🚨 EXCLUSIVE: Manchester City found guilty on virtually all charges relating to breaches of Premier League financial regulations. #MCFC expected to appeal against verdict issued by independent commission. Sanctions undecided, process ongoing @TheAthleticFC https://t.co/Muxqp4beK9

[③ @zurskiii]

We have the most access to information ever and somehow everybody is a fucking idiot

[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 ]

[Sarvesh @OneTouchGiroud]

@sama CEO OF OREO: “We want people to be able to eat tons of Oreos” 👍

[Sarvesh @OneTouchGiroud]

Why though?

[Elon Musk @elonmusk]

This is the future we shall bring into being

[voxium @v0xium]

I am done with this shit. It is over. The state of engineering right now is horrible. It has been half a month since I started a new role at a big company. Nobody knows anything here. The specs, code, tests, PRDs, tickets, resolution of those tickets, reports, etc., everything is made by Claude Code. Nobody on my team likes this. They are being forced to ship as much as they can. I have heard multiple times from higher management that pushing code is not a bottleneck, so why are we slow? People are working 12 to 13 hours a day just to press enter. Nobody is reading anything. Humans in corporate are doing nothing on their own. Everyone, literally everyone, from an L1 to an L7 engineer here is doing the same thing. Talk to Claude. There is no sense of victory. Nobody is resolving bugs. In reality, nobody is thinking anymore. Everything is done by LLMs. It is so soul-sucking. I would not mind it, to be honest, if we were at least given the time to check out the code and see what is going where. But no, the goal is to just ship. No matter what happens.

[Sevyn 🇯🇲 @chyycarter]

The football that Arteta has lined up after the international break will be a kind of terrorism the CIA ain’t discovered yet.