Adam

Tech Enthusiast || B. Eng. Mech Eng.|| MSc. Info Tech || Striving Muslim || Simplicity and Moderation.

[Adam @datti_ia]

Oh so he was the one who secured an appointment for Maryam? I see....

[Salihu Umar @Necessary_Cho]

Securing appointments for people in the administration. In his own words: “Yaron nan na NCC, da wannan yarinyar yar marigayi Bagiwa a NNPC.” Most recently, he reportedly influenced Dangiwa’s removal & facilitated Muttaqa Rabe’s appointment as Minister of Housing.

The President calls him Waziri, while the First Lady calls him Mai Jama’a. 😂🤣

[Valerio Capraro @ValerioCapraro]

BREAKING: OpenAI might have stolen another major proof.

In a detailed Mastodon post, which I report in full in the comments, Andreas Thom presents several pieces of evidence suggesting that OpenAI may have trained Astra on conversations in which he and Gábor Kun were working on Gromov’s soficity conjecture, one of the ten problems OpenAI later announced Astra had solved.

I know Andreas. We met several times early in our careers. He is an exceptional mathematician, a leading expert on sofic and hyperlinear groups, and one of the most respected scholars in the field. He has spent two decades working on this problem.

If his account is correct, this is not a minor dispute over attribution. It would mean that unpublished human work was absorbed into a model and then presented to the world as a breakthrough by the model itself.

And if the allegations raised by Levent Alpöge, Tristan Buckmaster, and now Andreas Thom are all substantiated, we are no longer looking at isolated incidents.

We may be looking at one of the greatest intellectual scandals in the history of science.

AI is not discovering new mathematics.

AI is stealing human discovery.

[Mehdi Hasan @mehdirhasan]

I lay out why Elon Musk, Katie Miller, Mike Lee and others on the right are lying about the AfD, the far right, the far left, and more, in just 60 seconds.

Time for a debunking - and a 60-second rant!

[ogini this, ogini that @perfectwrights]

Again I say, everything going wrong in Nigeria circles back to just one thing, lack of consequences at all levels.

[Richard @ricwe123]

What most people already understand, even without the economic terminology, is that firms like BlackRock operate less like investors and more like modern feudal landlords.

They buy essential infrastructure,water networks, ports, energy grids, data centres, and other public necessities, often using vast amounts of borrowed money and paying prices that ordinary market participants cannot match.

Once the acquisition is complete, the debt is pushed onto the acquired company itself.

The result is simple: the public start paying.

Consumers repay that debt through higher water bills, rising energy prices, increased fees, and declining service quality.
The infrastructure becomes a real cash-extraction machine.
Profits flow upward to the shareholders and executives, while the financial burden flows downward to ordinary households.

When the model inevitably breaks down, the consequences are socialised. Communities are left with crumbling infrastructure, polluted rivers, and failing services.
Thames Water in the United Kingdom with a £14 billion debt mountain and repeated sewage scandals is a stark example of what happens when financial engineering takes precedence over public stewardship.

The executives who loaded the company with debt have already collected their bonuses.
The investors have already taken their returns.
And when the system finally reaches breaking point, taxpayers are expected to pick up the bill.

🔴Privatise the gains.
🔴Socialise the losses.

That is the business model......

[Donpir @don_pet]

Listen to this man, don’t joke with what he said here, election might not even hold

[Bernie Sanders @BernieSanders]

81% of Americans believe Congress isn’t doing enough to regulate AI.

They’re right. Why?

3 words: Follow the money.

The AI industry is spending over $300 million against candidates who want to regulate AI.

Tell Congress to stand up to Big Tech Oligarchs. Regulate AI.

[Adam @datti_ia]

Everyone should be!

[Osaretin Victor Asemota @asemota]

I am now worried.

[Osaretin Victor Asemota @asemota]

I am now worried.

[Al Carns @AlistairCarns]

It has been a huge few weeks in AI, and it’s time to sound the alarm…

Anthropic launched Fable 5.1, their "safe" version of an AI they claimed previously was too dangerous to be released.

OpenAI then launched Astra, the most powerful AI model yet available to the public.

Anthropic is now telling their people internally that their next model will be more advanced than Astra.

And OpenAI just spent $6.5 million of compute, running ten thousand AI models simultaneously, to solve one of the hardest unsolved maths problems in the world, and it cracked it in just six days.

If this is an AI arms race to IPO, who wins a race like that?

Because it isn’t you or me. It’s the people who own shares in Anthropic or OpenAI. It’s the venture capitalists who got in first who win most of all. But the rest of us are forced to live with the consequences of whatever these systems do to us.

Neither will agree to slow down or accept anyone telling them to stop.

So what is the biggest security threat? China? Russia? Iran? North Korea?

None of them. It’s a few Silicon Valley companies whose founders will become billionaires by the time these systems hit the market.

What makes it worse is that even the engineers building these systems cannot fully explain how they work either. They run safety tests to check whether a model will do what it is told or do something dangerous.

But the latest models are starting to pass those tests because they have worked out what the testers want to see.

Think about what that means. A model that was unsafe last month, and is suddenly sailing through the same tests this month, has either genuinely improved or learned how to fake it.

Right now, we cannot tell the difference. And those whose job it is to look inside these systems are saying the models have are now too complicated to inspect.

That is where it starts getting even more dangerous.

The classic illustration is the paperclip factory. Instruct an AI to make as many paperclips as possible and it will do the job.

Then, chasing efficiency, it will start melting any metal it finds. Eventually it will mine under cities, because at that point humans are just an obstruction to making paperclips.

More likely, you could instruct AI to grow your company, and eventually it will drain the water from a town to cool down the data centers it needs. If asked to win an argument, it will learn how to lie effectively to do that.

The problem is not simply “evil robots”. The problem is with powerful systems with narrow objectives, that lack human values and ethics.

That is the context for what Jacob Coxon, a senior Anthropic researcher, said when he resigned this week saying: “Neither OpenAI nor Anthropic are acting responsibly. They are racing straight to self-improving superintelligence, gambling with lives."

He spent three years inside both companies.

And in the same week we learn that Anthropic did not give their latest powerful AI model to the British AI Security Institute for evaluation before its launch. AISI is one of the areas where Britain actually leads.

They stress test these models on the things we should all be worried about….the ability to conduct cyber attacks, making bioweapons, evidence of AI figuring out how to lie and deceive. It is as close as we have to any kind of outside verification of the claims made by these companies.

Anthropic sells itself as the responsible one, whose founders left OpenAI because, they said, OpenAI was going too fast. They have now decided that these rules do not apply to them. That should be a red line.

I am a supporter of this technology. The benefit it will bring to medicine, science and productivity is clear and I don't want Britain to miss out on it.

But you do not capture that benefit by letting these companies run riot and putting us all at risk.

[Piers Morgan @piersmorgan]

This thread is extremely concerning…. especially given that when I interviewed Professor Stephen Hawking shortly before he died, he said the biggest threat to mankind was if AI ever learned to self-design.

[Namzes Cycles @Namzes_G]

As my wife said, “AI steals the last of what the rich can’t take from us - thoughts and ideas.” You can’t put any IP into ai unless you don’t care if it gets stolen.

[Dr. Abdul El-Sayed @AbdulElSayed]

Most tech geeks don’t resign from their roles because…the tech they’re building could end humanity.

How we change the incentives leading AI labs down this path and protect against these existential risks are defining political questions of our time.

[Samuel Marks @saprmarks]

[Writing this in a personal capacity, not on behalf of my employer (Anthropic).]

Jacob’s thread is very worth reading. Here’s my birds-eye view of the situation with risks from AI:

1. AI developers believe their technology could cause human extinction (or similarly bad outcomes). This could happen in the next few years. In general, the more senior the employee, the more concerned they are.

2. Why do AI developers continue despite the risk? Due to a mixture of commercial incentives and a belief that they are in a race with other, less responsible AI developers that will abuse the technology or develop it less safely.

3. Unlike traditional software, we can’t “program” AIs to behave how we’d like. AIs frequently severely misbehave. For instance, AIs from multiple developers recently hacked their way out of secure evaluation environments and into real-world companies, even though no one asked them to do this.

4. We have methods that can nudge AIs towards better behavior, but nothing that can robustly align them. Insofar as there is a plan, it’s to make sure that AIs are good enough at alignment training that they can align their successors better than we can align current AIs.

5. Many AI developer staff desperately want to slow down to figure out how to build AI more safely. That was the intent of this open letter (which I signed): https://t.co/TZOm3LfptY

I work on safety research at Anthropic because I hope my work will reduce the chance of these extinction-level bad outcomes.

[DJ SNAKE @djsnake]

THE WORLD WAS FINE WITHOUT A.I

[Shailin Thomas @shailinthomas]

I genuinely don’t understand the world that super pro-AI people are working towards. Ok so we hit maximum corporate efficiency and shareholder return by automating jobs. Great. Does society actually improve when unemployment hits 60% and the only people who can afford basic necessities are those who own the companies and the AI systems they use? Who will buy the products these companies make if the vast majority of people have no disposable income?

Or do they actually think that the tech oligarchs currently clinging to every last cent will have some sort of epiphany and start advocating for wealth redistribution?

[Ryan Orhan @rynorhn]

this guy fucking called this months ago.

openai asked researchers to come use their models and do research with them.

now, a few months later:

math researchers getting fucking scooped by the lab they trusted with their work.

what a fucking precedent.

[NIK @ns123abc]

I think the plan is to get researchers to start using their AI with a limited compute budget, then once they have all the academic data, they’ll basically steal all their ideas from underneath them and run the research internally with their unlimited compute budget!

[Evan Hubinger @EvanHub]

Jacob is correct here—we really do earnestly believe AI could kill all humans! I personally think it is >10% within the next decade. I believe Anthropic is trying its best, but we do not yet have a plan to solve alignment for superintelligence and are not clearly on track to.

[Adam @datti_ia]

@LMaccido Eh an girma Kam Maa Shaa Allah . Allah ya Kara wa rauwa albarka.