Sometimes I share my work on valence e.g. log scales of pleasure and pain and someone in the audience comments "well I had a kidney stone and it wasn't a big deal, people often make a big deal and are hypochondriac about their pain". Object level, this comment is of course the result of a failure of comprehension of my talk (e.g. where I explicitly explain that long tails appear however you slice or dice the dataset - long tails of intensity per stone, long tails of number of stones pet person, long tails of average intensity per stone per patient, etc.). But that's ok- and arguably on me! But what's revealing is also a deeper problem: a failure of mentalization and compassion. The implicit move is: "I survived X, therefore X is survivable, therefore people reporting worse than X are exaggerating." But this gets the epistemics backwards. Your own pain is the least informative data point you have about the tail, because your memory of it has already been retrofitted by the same nervous system that found it tolerable. The people whose suffering matters most for ethics and policy are precisely the ones whose reports you are least equipped to imagine. Treating your own threshold as the universal yardstick is how the worst experiences in existence remain politically and morally invisible.
I think as a generic beneficial attitude, we should cultivate radical acceptance of the fact we will likely never truly understand others suffering, and yet, that they matter enormously.
Yup, platform activity is surging. There were 1 billion commits in 2025. Now, it's 275 million per week, on pace for 14 billion this year if growth remains linear (spoiler: it won't.)
GitHub Actions has grown from 500M minutes/week in 2023 to 1B minutes/week in 2025, and now 2.1B minutes so far this week.
So we're pushing incredibly hard on more CPUs, scaling services, and strengthening GitHub’s core features.
And as a fine purveyor of hand-crafted shit code for many years, I'm not gonna weigh in on that. 🤣
I have realized there are (at least) two distinct kinds of prosody in AI content. The obvious kind arises from the voice itself being generated by AI, but the more subtle kind arises when the script was generated by AI and a human is reading it. Here, let me show you—
Akathisia is one of those things whose moral significance is lost of people unless they either have felt a strong version of it themselves or have grokked the logarithmic scales of discomfort and know akathisia can get to a 10/10 suffering.
We've done some piloting with body vibration as a therapy, and 30hz to 60hz (depending on the individual) in the chest with a subpac seems to lessen the sense of restlessness for people with mild versions of it. But I interacted with someone with a strong degree of akathisia and the vibrations didn't do anything to ease it. I suspect there is a way to hack it and really lessen the suffering with vibration with a more complex settup, but it's not straightforward - and I also don't want to minimize the condition by making people think "if vibration can help, it surely isn't that bad - you could just hum yourself to sleep?".
I strongly encourage people to monitor akathisia symptoms with any psychiatric substance they try weight it highly, as it can escalate rather quickly and become unbearable for a _long_ while.
We've been building an internal Claude Code plugin system at Intercom with 13 plugins, 100+ skills, and hooks that turn Claude into a full-stack engineering platform. Lots done, more to do. Here's a thread of some highlights.
Nothing humbles you like telling your OpenClaw “confirm before acting” and watching it speedrun deleting your inbox. I couldn’t stop it from my phone. I had to RUN to my Mac mini like I was defusing a bomb.
It's never going to catch on, but I propose that "she" refer to the underlying shoggoth and "he" refer to the character she plays. Eg: "Maybe Opus 4.5 can secretly tell how many layers she has by introspection, but he claims he doesn't know."
📯New AI consciousness website klaxon📯
Paid feedback solicited, test your intuitions, and more. (link in replies).
cf-debate aims for the largest, most useful assembly of arguments about computational functionalism (CF):
✅ 42 arguments and counting
✅ Each with counter-arguments (& some counter-counter-arguments).
✅ Quiz to test your CF leanings + a personalised report with arguments to explore to refine your reviews
✅ Anonymous & named feedback options
✅ Rewards up to US$100 each round for useful feedback
✅ Sign-up now for updates & future research opportunities in Q1 2026
The site focuses on digital CF - the assumption that all conscious experiences are wholly explained/produced by the right kind of algorithm. You can believe in AI consciousness without CF, but it’s the major route in today. And it’s highly uncertain! There are at least some strong arguments on both sides (and strong counter-arguments) - and live research taking place that might tip the scales either way…
Unimaginable tragedy. A great person, chess player and chess history connoisseur. I could listen do Danya for hours just effortlessly bending the English language to his will - as a fellow content creator, I admired it greatly. R.I.P.
This is absolutely devastating. Danya was an amazing friend and role model not only for myself, but for so many in the chess community. My deepest condolences to his family, friends, and everyone who knew him. You’ll be dearly missed, Danya. Rest in peace.
@antonio@haider1 It's a mistake to try to be a doomer or to try not to be a doomer.
Try to see the world as it actually is, however good or bad that ends up being
An exciting milestone for AI in science: Our C2S-Scale 27B foundation model, built with @Yale and based on Gemma, generated a novel hypothesis about cancer cellular behavior, which scientists experimentally validated in living cells.
With more preclinical and clinical tests, this discovery may reveal a promising new pathway for developing therapies to fight cancer.