These are cool demos but is this actually demonstrating the model has a internal model of watch mechanisms or that it was trained an open source project that already did this?
So I gave Fable 5 the watchmaker benchmark: a full Swiss lever movement in Three.js. Real gear ratios (18,000 bph), working escapement, breathing hairspring — and the hands tell actual time. It verified its own work with vision, in a loop, until done. ⌚
I doubt it’ll actually happen — but it damn well should. We’ve let in huge numbers from cultures that openly reject Western values: free speech, women’s rights, secular law, individual liberty. Parallel societies, no-go zones, honor violence, and demands for Sharia don’t belong here. Citizenship isn’t a participation trophy. It’s a privilege that requires real assimilation — or you go back.
Our highest and most urgent national priority should be AI safeguards. The risks of AI weapons, pathogens, mass unemployment, surveillance, and even extinction must not continue to be largely ignored.
@nickcammarata@RichDecibels You think we’re on track to have the right safety technology and to steer things well given the short timeline to the… something that you mentioned?
No one:
Claude Opus 4.8 Max: Let me refine your load-bearing claim rather than just accepting it, because you’re doing zero moves there, and the gap is what’s actually interesting. The one place I’d still push, because I think it matters: your message is wearing content-clothes, but the content isn’t actually *there*. The tell: it’s just an empty string. But the emptiness of the string IS its lack of content. Pull one, and the other goes inert. That’s the structural spine.
@tulipking Unimpressed? Open WebUI does all of that but better and most of these capabilities are available in different open source projects so it’s not a major lift to combine them with Codex or Claude code.
@g_shullenberger This is a blatant mischaracterization of @slatestarcodex position on AI risk. He is a well known doomer. You’ve literally got it entirely backwards.
@RGregoryClark It is entirely possible to have a turbulent fireball that, at the event site, generates a mild overpressure which then, in the farfield, steepens into a blast as compression waves form a strong shock. Assigning a single TNT‑equivalence to such an event is essentially meaningless.
First look at LC-36 from the air this morning after the explosion of New Glenn last night during a failed hotfire test.
Visible is the wreckage from the destroyed TE as well as the fallen lightning tower. More to come soon.
📸 - @LaunchHeavenX
@dwarkesh_sp And by the time something is better than humanity at everything, you and I won't be able to tell whether another superintelligence would consider it specialized on manipulation or math.
1. Dwarkesh is right: intelligence is a weak predictor of power in humans.
2. Instead, close study of powerful humans suggests that power is downstream of properties like charisma, unscrupulousness, and ambition.
3. But is this likely to be true of the AI superintelligence? How might an intelligence-maximalist respond to Dwarkesh? I think they could say something like:
"Sure, powerful humans are more likely to be charismatic than smart. But that's fundamentally a skill issue for humans, not a fact about intelligence per se.
Trump can outplay a physicist at social-manipulation only because the physicist *isn't quite smart enough* to properly model the social interactions in question. A true superintelligence would!"
3. In short, the intelligence-maximalist can claim that Trump's strategy for acquiring power is akin to the way some birds use magnetic sensing to navigate the earth - a computationally efficient "hack" that could, ultimately, be instantiated through intelligence alone.
4. So, although real-world-Trump convinces millions to vote for him through his unbeatable mastery of Magic Charisma Sauce, even Magic Charisma Sauce can be trivially outmogged by the unbridled IQ of a superintelligent TrumpGPT.
5. Claiming that, in the limit, intelligence == power therefore looks like a safe bet: it is a bet that magic does not exist. Anything that can be done can be understood, and anything that can be understood can be done. Anything the charismacels can do, the superintelligence can do better.
6. But I'm not so sure. Magic may exist after all. It's unclear to me that the world is in fact infinitely modellable and computationally reducible, particularly by one entity. Dynomight's "limits of smart" is the best I've read on the subject - the superintelligence may still lose to Stockfish at chess and/or fail to predict the weather.
(there is, of course, an entirely different objection to Dwarkesh's intelligence =/= power, which asserts that this non-equivalence is a contingent outcome of the fact that humans are bottlenecked by things like desire and ambition, none of which would apparently impinge upon the silicon supergod)