Hammer

Building and surviving, optimistic at heart, excited by the mind
🔗 | |

[Hammer @hammersi]

Dangerous times ahead of us

[signüll @signulll]

november 2026 will be the most consequential month in american history.

social norms will collapse. loneliness will plummet. relationships will end. productivity will crater. geopolitical conflicts will pause.

all because we are entering a new civilizational epoch: before gta 6 & after gta 6.

[Hammer @hammersi]

@kentcdodds Go on

[Hammer @hammersi]

@netcapgirl Don’t let ai do the thinking for you

[Hammer @hammersi]

@signulll Most people react to life. They don’t even realize that they can automate or simplify anything. They wait for someone else to hand them the solution on a silver platter

[Hammer @hammersi]

Most people react to life. They don’t even realize that they can automate or simplify anything today with ai. They wait for someone else to hand them the solution on a silver platter

[signüll @signulll]

there are so many everyday demos that could make ai, personal agents, & agents in general feel insanely powerful to normal ppl & yet ai companies keep choosing things like booking flights, planning travel, or god forbid planning a god damn wedding.

these are not everyday problems. they’re relatively rare events & worse for a lot of ppl they’re actually part of the joys of life. the best demo should make someone feel pain they already are familiar with disappearing. almost every company gets this wrong. they optimize for spectacle instead of relief which is fine in some cases but it doesn’t last.

one of my favorite historical examples is a product called head on.

the ad showed someone with a headache, then showed them applying the product directly to their forehead while repeating:

“head on. apply directly to the forehead.”

beautifully simple. you instantly understood the product, the problem, & the value. ai companies should be doing the same thing.

show me the annoying thing i deal with every single day then make it disappear. it’s not sexy, i guarantee it will work. when jobs demo’ed the iphone he picked universal simple problems that the iphone did better than anything else on the fucking planet.

anyway, thanks for coming to my ted talk.

[Hammer @hammersi]

@thepanta82 Yea I hit several issues and even opened a ticket
But they are fine. Good value for money

[Hammer @hammersi]

Surprise surprise

[Polymarket @Polymarket]

JUST IN: Investigation reveals former Anthropic researcher Jacob Coxon reportedly worked with a “doomer PR firm” while launching his viral campaign warning of AI’s existential risks.

[Hammer @hammersi]

We desperately need a proof of humanity

[Hammer @hammersi]

Finally someone’s says that

[Naval @naval]

The best way to pace the frontier is to hold the labs fully liable for the behavior of their models.

[Hammer @hammersi]

There’s a third one, a sinister one.
AI might not evolve much further, but is good enough. Humans optimize for least resistance path and will loose their critical thinking skill.

It is already happening due to social media, AI can worsen it by several order of magnitudes

[Yishan @yishan]

Maybe you have recently become aware of the AI safety debate and the arguments swirling around it.

If you want to understand them, you need to understand a couple things that almost everyone gets wrong:

There are TWO distinct classes of AI dangers, and it's VERY important to think about them separately, and not let one confuse you about the other.

Many many people (including many quite intelligent, clear-thinking people) do not effectively understand the fundamental differences between these two classes of dangers.

The first one has to do with the theory that an AI far superior to human intelligence (Artificial SuperIntelligence, or ASI) will inevitably wipe out the human race.

The second one has to do with the idea that powerful AI will result in very harmful things happening to many human beings, possibly all human beings.

Those two sound VERY similar, don't they?

They are DIFFERENT. Understanding how they are different is crucial if you want to think about or contribute usefully to any conversation about AI safety or AI harm. You might feel like you are Making Very Good Points or Asking Incisive Questions, but if you aren't clear on the differences between the two, you aren't.

So, I'm going to tell you what the difference is so that you can talk more usefully.

The first one concerns itself with a very specific thing, which is ASI (Artificial Superintelligence) that is more intelligent than any human being. When I say that, I am not referring to a thing like how Einstein is smarter than you, we are talking more about something like how a human being is more intelligent than any mouse.

In our regular lives, we meet other people who we can tell are smarter than us, vs some who are less smart. The line is fuzzy, because intelligence has a lot of dimensions. I'm better at a "rotating shapes" kind of intelligence than my wife, and she is better at "words-making" kind of intelligence than I am.

But every human is better in almost every dimension of intelligence than every single mouse.

That's the level we're talking about: an artificial superintelligence - made up of a computer or a network of computers - that is more intelligent than any human. And more intelligent by a long shot, by a wide margin, in an indisputable way like how humans are above mice.

That is the first thing.

The theory says that if you have an AI that is vastly smarter than all humans - in the way that a human is smarter than mice - that superintelligent AI will inevitably, eventually, sooner or later, wipe out every human on the planet.

We will refer to this as "existential risk."

The common follow-up question "well, how exactly is it going to do that?" is NOT the important question, and one of the most important elements of understanding this theory is first getting why that particular question is not important. A couple analogies:

Analogy 1: You are playing chess against a grandmaster. My theory predicts the grandmaster is going to beat you. You can ask "Well, how exactly is he going to do that?" I don't know, because I'm not a grandmaster, I just know that a chess grandmaster is almost always going to beat a normal player like you. And I'd be right. So the question "how is he going to do that" is not important, and doesn't affect the final outcome. He's going to figure out a way because he's way better than you.

Analogy 2: Humans are smarter than all other animals, comprehensively, by a wide margin. We have driven numerous species to extinction, not because we hated them or hunted them. Many of them have died out without most humans even ever thinking about them. All we did was expand our civilization, use up resources, encroach on habitats, and pretty soon the resources needed by those species went away and they died out. We figured out a way to get what we wanted because we're way smarter than them, and often we didn't even notice they died as a result.

A lesser animal asking, "how are the humans going to wipe us out?" is not asking a relevant question. We don't know, but we do know that any time humans and lesser species compete for any kind of resources, the humans will win. The fact that we know who is going to win beforehand - and that it is due to the vastly different levels of intelligence - is the key concept here.

A vastly more intelligent AI is likely to care about things that are incomprehensible to us, the way animals can't understand human goals. It's going to need resources to pursue those goals and it's going to be far more effective at gaining control of them and excluding us from them - in the same way that we are far more effective than other lower species.

A much more intelligent AI will not care about our interests, it will care about its interests, and to whatever small degree we happen to escape total annihilation from losing access to all our resources, any remaining humans will likely be enslaved into a system that serves the AI's own purposes.

That is the first thing. (Remember how I said at the beginning of this post that there was a first thing, and then a second thing?)

The first thing is the most difficult to understand, because you have to extrapolate how a vastly superior intelligence would act, and you can only use analogies like "how do humans treat lesser creatures," and the analogies are messy.

But now let's move on to the second thing.

The second thing is "everything else you've ever heard that AI might do that's harmful."

That's a little inaccurate. It's actually "everything else you've ever heard that humans might use AI to do that's harmful."

This is the critical difference. The first one talks about the inevitable outcome of what happens when two vastly different levels of intelligence collide, e.g. ASI vs humans, or human vs mice.

The second one has to do with what happens when humans possess AI as a powerful tool. This second thing is much easier to understand, because we have many more concrete notions:

Like:
- the military uses AI to make hyper-efficient killer drones and missiles
- your capitalist overlords use AI to replace you and everyone loses their jobs
- authoritarian government uses AI to surveil everybody and control the entire population
- hackers use AI to break into secure networks and hold companies and governments hostage
- students use AI to cheat on homework and show up to college knowing nothing
- AI slop saturates the internet and makes it impossible for artists and writers to make a living
- terrorists use AI to make biological or nuclear weapons

or even things like
- the military hands control to an AI and it misinterprets something and launches nuclear attacks and kills millions

All of those sound pretty familiar, right? Yeah, you've heard them before. We call this second thing "risks from misuse."

These problems are not the first class of problem! This second class of problems exists while AI is a tool that can be controlled by humans, and humans use it to do evil or careless things to each other. The problems may sound exotic or dystopian or novel, but they are fundamentally problems having to do with flawed human nature.

Given a powerful tool, some humans will likely use it to control or otherwise harm others. This is a very familiar problem.

I am not condemning or condoning this. I'm just describing it.

That is a fundamentally different danger from the first thing, which is that when a human is far superior to a mouse, the mouse is likely to come to harm because the human cares about doing human things, and the mouse is not gonna make it once the humans get going.

=====

Hopefully from the above, you have understood the difference between the first thing and the second thing. I will list them again - see if you now understand how they are different:

The first one has to do with the idea that an AI superior to human intelligence (Artificial SuperIntelligence, or ASI) will inevitably wipe out the human race.

The second one has to do with the idea that powerful AI will result in very harmful things happening to many human beings, possibly all human beings.

Can you tell how they are different now?

If not, re-read the stuff from earlier until you understand.

We call the first one "existential risk" and we call the second one "risks from misuse."

Once you understand, here is the CRUX of the problem:

SOLUTIONS TO THE SECOND THING DO NOT HAVE ANYTHING TO DO WITH SOLUTIONS TO THE FIRST THING.

In fact, it's worse:

Solutions to the second thing (misuse) look roughly like "give powerful AI to as many people as you can, so they can fight the other people using powerful AI."

But the general solution to the first one (existential risk) is basically "don't let anyone have powerful AI, no one can control super-intelligent AI."

Throughout history, harms from technological misuse typically arise because a small group has control of it and can use it to dominate or harm others. Once everyone has it, things tend to stabilize: you can hurt me, I can hurt you, maybe we test each other (ouch 💥), and then we agree not to hurt each other.

But the first one (existential risk) pretty much just arises if anyone (good or bad!) creates a superintelligence. Because they aren't going to be able to control it, the superintelligence will decide it has other priorities, and then we will be at great risk of being wiped out.

And the solutions that generally work to solve problems like the second thing are EXACTLY THE OPPOSITE of the ones likely to solve the first thing.

THIS is why lots of arguments about "AI risk" or "AI safety" go nowhere. Because someone will be thinking about the risk from the first thing, and another person will be thinking about the risk from the second thing. Both are plausible risks but fundamentally they arise from different things - and so the solutions are not just "bad" or "flawed" - they are likely to be very nearly exact opposites.

[Hammer @hammersi]

Such a good concept!

[Fuli Luo @_LuoFuli]

Nearly half a year of silence. We spent it studying one problem: how far RL can scale.

MiMo-V2.6 is in the middle of its RL run right now. Three things we scaled: compute (~2B tokens per step, 1568 prompts × 16 rollouts, fully async), environments and harnesses (multi-task agentic RL, mixed across multiple harnesses in one run), and grader compute (agentic in-group credit assignment, with test-case and rubric-based rewards). We'll open-source the details piece by piece over the coming weeks.

Streaming the run: https://t.co/ZSxahzJRju

[Hammer @hammersi]

@weswinder Wait until you meet the pro ai-ists

[Hammer @hammersi]

@KoutoTV 1 and 3 are the same..

[Hammer @hammersi]

you will all die.
we can protect you
you must follow us and do as we say
---
where have i heard this before

[Anthropic @AnthropicAI]

We're publishing our most detailed threat intelligence report to date.

It covers how people tried to misuse Claude—for cyberattacks, influence operations, surveillance, biology, and building weapons—and how we found and stopped them.

We disrupted every operation in the report, and used the lessons from them to strengthen our safeguards. Where appropriate, we also shared what we found with authorities and other AI companies.

These cases are not typical: we’re highlighting some of the most sophisticated misuse we’ve seen. But they’re especially important to discuss, because they show us where AI misuse is headed, where our safeguards work, and where they need to improve.

We’re publishing this report so others can spot the same activity on their own platforms, and so we can give the public a clearer view of how emerging threats develop.

Read the report: https://t.co/0EJUnYEgfz

[Hammer @hammersi]

Both! Don’t buy their bs, don’t let them scare you, the current capabilities of AI are good but not doom.
Since opus 4.5 there was not a breakthrough just better RL

They see it, they’ve been fear mongering for a while now

[Drew Hamlett @drewhamlett]

The only 2 explanations for what's happening in AI.

1. They're afraid of open weight models
2. They've hit a wall. They all the see the same thing.

There's no way in hell they are seeing ASI. They still ship Electron apps. If they were close to ASI then they could cure cancer

[Hammer @hammersi]

@diodo_e Hello 👋🏻

[Hammer @hammersi]

@TXMCtrades @AnthropicAI It is coordinated marketing ploy
Fuck them

[Hammer @hammersi]

@elonmusk pls don’t doom market

[Hammer @hammersi]

@EvanHub @0xGabriel_eth Fck you

[Hammer @hammersi]

Guys, literally,
Just tell the ai to “write simply and clear”

Don’t overthink this one

[elvis @omarsar0]

A few days ago, Anthropic shared this brilliant prompt.

I was surprised by how it significantly improved writing with Fable 5.1.

Even more surprising, it also improved writing for GPT-5.6 Sol.

I have it as a rule everywhere I use AI for editing/writing.