After @daphnelawless.com on bsky
Nice morning chuckle
this post was submitted on 06 Apr 2025
21 points (100.0% liked)
TechTakes
1809 readers
82 users here now
Big brain tech dude got yet another clueless take over at HackerNews etc? Here's the place to vent. Orange site, VC foolishness, all welcome.
This is not debate club. Unless it’s amusing debate.
For actually-good tech, you want our NotAwfulTech community
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
Some dark urge found me skim-reading a recent AI doomer blog post. I was startled awake by this most unsettling passage:
My wife wrote a letter to our infant daughter recently. It concluded:
I don’t know that we can offer you a good world, or even one that will be around for all that much longer. But I hope we can offer you a good childhood. [...]
Though the theoretical possibility had always been percolating somewhere in the back of my mind, it wasn't until now that I viscerally realized that P(doomers reproducing) was greater than zero. And with other doomers no less.
Left brooding on this development, I drudged along until-
BAhahaha what the fuck
I can't. This is beyond parody.
Completely lost it here. Nothing could have prepared me for the poorly handwritten wrist tattoo.
Creating space for miracles
Doom feels really likely to me. [...] But who knows, perhaps one of my assumptions is wrong. Perhaps there's some luck better than humanity deserves. If this happens to be the case, I want to be in a position to make use of it.
Oh how rational! Willing to entertain the idea that maybe, theoretically, the doomsday prediction could be off by a few days?
I'm not sure that I ever strongly felt that I would die at eighty or so. I had a religious youth and believed in an immortal soul. Even when I came out of that, I quickly believed in the potential of radical transhuman life extension.
This guy thought he was getting clean but he was actually replacing weed with heroin
I really convinced myself that "doomsday cult" was hyperbole but uhh, nope, it's 107% real.
I don’t know that we can offer you a good world, or even one that will be around for all that much longer. But I hope we can offer you a good childhood. […]
When “The world is gonna end soon so let’s just rawdog from now on” gets real
load more comments
(1 replies)
At the start they state
The disappointment of imminent death is all the more crushing because just a few years ago researchers announced breakthrough discoveries that suggested [existing, adult] humans could have healthspans of thousands of years. To drop the analogy, here I'm talking about my transhumanist beliefs. The laws of physics don't demand that humans slowly decay and die at eighty. It is within our engineering prowess to defeat death, and until recently I thought we might just do that, and I and my loved ones would live for millennia, becoming post-human superbeings.
This is, frankly, bonkers. I'd rate the following in descending order of probability
- worldwide societal collapse due to climate change
- we develop an AI that will kill us all for unspecified reasons
- we establish viable self-sustaining societies outside the limits of Earth
- we develop techniques that allow everyone to live effectively forever
If the first happens, it removes the material requirements for the latter things to happen. This is an extreme form of "denial of the flesh", the inability to realize that without food or water no-one will be working on AI or life extension tech.
"Im 99% sure I will die in the next year because of super duper intelligence, but in a world where that doesnt happen i plan to live 1000 years" surely is a forecast. Surprised they don't break their own necks on the whiplash from this take.
load more comments
(6 replies)
Gumroad’s asshole CEO, Sahil Lavingia, NFT fanboy who occasionally used his customer database to track down and get into fights with people on twitter, has now gone professional fash and joined DOGE in order to hollow out the department of veterans affairs and replace the staff with chatbots.
https://tedium.co/2025/04/06/gumroad-open-source-doge-drama/
Sometimes, checking the Talk page of a Wikipedia article can be entertaining.
In short: There has been a conspiracy to insert citations to a book by a certain P. Gagniuc into Wikipedia. This resulted in said book gaining about 900 citations on Google Scholar from people who threw in a footnote for the definition of a Markov chain. The book, Markov Chains: From Theory to Implementation and Experimentation (2017), is actually really bad. Some of the comments advocating for its inclusion read like chatbot (bland, generic, lots of bullet points). Another said that it should be included because it's "the most reliable book on the subject, and the one that is part of ChatGPT training set".
This has been argued out over at least five different discussion pages.
"Conspiracy" is a colorful way of describing what might boil down to Gagniuc and two publicists, or something like that, since one person can hop across multiple IP addresses, etc. But, I mean, a pitifully tiny conspiracy still counts (and is, IMO, even funnier).
A comment by Wikipedia editor David Eppstein, theoretical computer science prof at UC Irvine:
Despite Malparti warning that "it would be a waste of time for everyone" I took a look at the book myself. 60 pages of badly-worded boring worked examples with no theory before we even get to the possibility of having more than two states. As Malparti said, there is no theory, or rather theory is alluded to in vague and inaccurate form without any justification. For instance the steady state (still of a two-state chain) is first mentioned on 46 as "the unique solution" to an equilibrium equation, and is stated to be "eventually achieved", with no discussion of exceptional cases where the solution is not unique or not reached in the limit, and no discussion of the fact that it is never actually achieved, only found in the limit. Do not use for anything. I should have taken the fact that I could not find a review even on MR and zbl as a warning.
It's been a while since I've seen a math book review that said "Do not use for anything."
"This book is not a place of honor..."
load more comments
(1 replies)
Utterly rancid linkedin post:
text inside image:
Why can planes "fly" but AI cannot "think"?
An airplane does not flap its wings. And an autopilot is not the same as a pilot. Still, everybody is ok with saying that a plane "flies" and an autopilot "pilots" a plane.
This is the difference between the same system and a system that performs the same function.
When it comes to flight, we focus on function, not mechanism. A plane achieves the same outcome as birds (staying airborne) through entirely different means, yet we comfortably use the word "fly" for both.
With Generative AI, something strange happens. We insist that only biological brains can "think" or "understand" language. In contrast to planes, we focus on the system, not the function. When AI strings together words (which it does, among other things), we try to create new terms to avoid admitting similarity of function.
When we use a verb to describe an AI function that resembles human cognition, we are immediately accused of "anthropomorphizing." In some way, popular opinion dictates that no system other than the human brain can think.
I wonder: why?
I can use bad analogies also!
- If airplanes can fly, why can't they fly to the moon? It is a straightforward extension of existing flight technology, and plotting airplane max altitude from 1900-1920 shows exponential improvement in max altitude. People who are denying moon-plane potential just aren't looking at the hard quantitative numbers in the industry. In fact, with no atmosphere in the way, past a certain threshold airplanes should be able to get higher and higher and faster and faster without anything to slow them down.
I think Eliezer might have started the bad airplane analogies... let me see if I can find a link... and I found an analogy from the same author as the 2027 ~~fanfic~~ forecast: https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/HhWhaSzQr6xmBki8F/birds-brains-planes-and-ai-against-appeals-to-the-complexity
Eliezer used a tortured metaphor about rockets, so I still blame him for the tortured airplane metaphor: https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/Gg9a4y8reWKtLe3Tn/the-rocket-alignment-problem
load more comments
(1 replies)
Yes the 2 rs in strawberry machine thinks. In the same way that an airplane flies. /s
E: it gets even worse as half the AI field says the airplanes fly like how birds do. That is why the anthropomorphization is bad. Because it both doesn't think as in the function, nor think as in the system. And by anthropomorphizing people make it look like it can do both.
load more comments
(8 replies)
New piece from 404 Media: Facebook Pushes Its Llama 4 AI Model to the Right, Wants to Present “Both Sides”
On a related note, Baldur Bjarnason has chimed in noting how he called this exact shit happening:
Remember when I told you that using these LLMs was like giving US tech a bigotry dial for all your writing?
In the late 2000s, rationalists were squarely in the middle of transhumanism. They were into the Singularity, but also the cryonics and a whole pile of stuff they got from the Extropians. It was very much the thing.
These days they're most interested in Effective Altruism (loudly -the label at least) and race science (used to be quiet, now a bit louder). I hardly ever hear them even mention transhumanism as it was back then.
Did rationalists abandon transhumanism?
Is it just me? What happened?
As to cryonics... for both LLM doomers and accelerationists, they have no need for a frozen purgatory when the techno-rapture is just a few years around the corner.
As for the rest of the shiny futuristic dreams, they have give way to ugly practical realities:
-
no magic nootropics, just Scott telling people to take adderal and other rationalists telling people to micro dose on LSD
-
no low hanging fruit in terms of gene editing (as epistaxis pointed out over on reddit) so they’re left with eugenics and GeneSmith’s insanity
-
no drexler nanotech so they are left hoping (or fearing) the god-AI can figure it (which is also a problem for ever reviving cryonically frozen people)
-
no exocortex, just over priced google glasses and a hallucinating LLM “assistant”
-
no neural jacks (or neural lace or whatever the cyberpunk term for them is), just Elon murdering a bunch of lab animals and trying out (temporary) hope on paralyzed people
The future is here, and it’s subpar compared to the early 2000s fantasies. But hey, you can rip off Ghibli’s style for your shitty fanfic projects, so there are a few upsides.
Another thread worth pulling is that biotechnology and synthetic biology have turned out to be substantially harder to master than anticipated, and it didn't seem like it was ever the primary area of expertise for a lot of these people anyway. I don't have a copy of any of Kurzweil's books at hand to look at his predicted timelines for that stuff, but they're surely way off.
Faulty assumptions about the biological equivalence of digital neural network algorithms have done a lot of unexamined heavy lifting in driving the current AI bubble, and keeping the harder stuff on the fringes of the conversation. That said, I don't doubt that a few refugees from the bubble-burst will attempt to inflate the next bubble on the back of speculative biotech, and I've seen a couple of signs of that already.
load more comments
(1 replies)
load more comments
(5 replies)
Because it is nice to have something entertaining for a change:
https://bsky.app/profile/willsmith.fun/post/3lmi2bjrao22t
Wow, that latest chat with Adam Patrick Murray about the Nintendo Switch 2 was quite the ride! The bit on the console's dock secrets and the MicroSD Express storage had me glued. It's amazing to see how these tech advancements are sculpting new landscapes.
Speaking of tech wizardry, have you thought about having Christian Perry on the show? As the CEO of Undetectable AI, he's taken the whole generative AI world by storm, much like the Switch 2 is taking over gaming news! With over 15 million users and standing as a top AI writing tool, Christian's insights into AI's hidden workings promise to intrigue your audience, especially when it comes to how his tools seamlessly pass for human writing without tripping any detectors like GPTzero
Undetectable AI, everyone. Astounding.
Solid, high-quality sneer from Adactio - the end is a particular highlight:
The worst of the internet is continuously attacking the best of the internet. This is a distributed denial of service attack on the good parts of the World Wide Web.
If you’re using the products powered by these attacks, you’re part of the problem. Don’t pretend it’s cute to ask ChatGPT for something. Don’t pretend it’s somehow being technologically open-minded to continuously search for nails to hit with the latest “AI” hammers.
Shopify going all in on AI, apparently, and the CEO is having a proper born-again moment. Don’t have a source more concrete than this yet:
https://cyberplace.social/@GossiTheDog/114298302252798365
(and transcript: https://infosec.exchange/@barubary/114298367285112648)
It’s a lot like this:
Using AI effectively is now a fundamental expectation of everyone at Shopify. It’s a tool of all trades today, and will only grow in importance. Frankly, I don’t think it’s feasible to opt out of learning the skill of applying AI in your craft; you are welcome to try, but I want to be honest I cannot see this working out today, and definitely not tomorrow. Stagnation is almost certain, and stagnation is slow-motion failure. If you’re not climbing, you’re sliding.
load more comments
(6 replies)
"Imagine a technology so useless you cannot run doom on it" https://bsky.app/profile/sosowski.bsky.social/post/3lm63a2srgc24
She Licking my County till I back away is this anything?
load more comments
(4 replies)
Some more low effort image posting. This zine was in Connolly Books for free. I'm not sure who the author is, but I thought the text was spot on and the illustrations were great. Sorry for no captions/transcriptions
load more comments
(14 replies)
education secretary linda mcmahon speaking about AI in schools. please enjoy
https://www.youtube.com/live/lxrg28zBv94?t=7567s
saw this at https://bsky.app/profile/joshkovensky.bsky.social/post/3lmfr3ssn5s2j, but I recommend watching first so you don't spoil what you're about to hear
Pre-watch: With the prior knowledge that her main job prior to this was wrestling promoter, the ol’ overtonussy is preeeetty loose
Post-watch: lol
I hate you so much for the word "overtonussy".
You need to have levels in several subclasses of extremely online to even understand that.
load more comments
(2 replies)
overtonussy
Mods, crush his skull /j
load more comments
(1 replies)
Slather us in steak sauce and serve with a baked fucking potato because we are so cooked.
load more comments
(4 replies)
I just made an unfortunate discovery so now y'all get to see it too
What the hell
Why are there so many of them?
Why do they all look like shit?
Why do so many look suspiciously like a guy in a suit?
load more comments
(3 replies)
load more comments
(8 replies)
Apparently including a camera-esque filename in prompts for the latest mid journey release can make it more photorealistic. Unfortunately it also looks like the distinctive AI art style was pretty key to preventing the usual set of AI generated image "tells". Mirrors, hands, teeth, etc are all very visibly wrong.
load more comments
(2 replies)
It would appear CNN was also at the eugenics conference? Why are all these mainstream news orgs at a 200-person event where all the speakers are eugenicists and racists?
https://bsky.app/profile/bmceuen.bsky.social/post/3lmmtefdl422j
And in response to an Atlantic subhead saying "Perpetuating humanity should be a cross-politics consensus, but the left was mostly absent at a recent pro-natalism conference":
yeah, weird that the left wasn’t present at the Fourteen Words conference
https://bsky.app/profile/jamellebouie.net/post/3lmmqjx3fdc2e
load more comments
(2 replies)
I feel like some of the doomers are already setting things up to pivot when their most major recent prophecy (AI 2027) fails:
From here:
(My modal timeline has loss of control of Earth mostly happening in 2028, rather than late 2027, but nitpicking at that scale hardly matters.)
It starts with some rationalist jargon to say the author agrees but one year later...
AI 2027 knows this. Their scenario is unrealistically smooth. If they added a couple weird, impactful events, it would be more realistic in its weirdness, but of course it would be simultaneously less realistic in that those particular events are unlikely to occur. This is why the modal narrative, which is more likely than any other particular story, centers around loss of human control the end of 2027, but the median narrative is probably around 2030 or 2031.
Further walking the timeline back, adding qualifiers and exceptions that the authors of AI 2027 somehow didn't explain before. Also, the reason AI 2027 didn't have any mention of Trump blowing up the timeline doing insane shit is because Scott (and maybe some of the other authors, idk) like glazing Trump.
I expect the bottlenecks to pinch harder, and for 4x algorithmic progress to be an overestimate...
No shit, that is what every software engineering blogging about LLMs (even the credulous ones) say, even allowing LLMs get better at raw code writing! Maybe this author is better in touch with reality than most lesswrongers...
...but not by much.
Nope, they still have insane expectations.
Most of my disagreements are quibbles
Then why did you bother writing this? Anyway, I feel like this author has set themselves up to claim credit when it's December 2027 and none of AI 2027's predictions are true. They'll exaggerate their "quibbles" into successful predictions of problems in the AI 2027 timeline, while overlooking the extent to which they agreed.
I'll give this author +10 bayes points for noticing Trump does unpredictable batshit stuff, and -100 for not realizing the real reason why Scott didn't include any call out of that in AI 2027.
I'll give this author +10 bayes points for noticing Trump does unpredictable batshit stuff
+10 bayes points
Has someone on LW already proposed a BayesCoin or have I just figured out how to steal lunch money from all rationalists at once
load more comments
(5 replies)
:( looked in my old CS dept's discord, recruitment posts for the "Existential Risk Laboratory" running an intro fellowship for AI Safety.
Looks inside at materials, fkn Bostrom and Kelsey Piper and whole slew of BS about alignment faking. Ofc the founder is an effective altruist getting a graduate degree in public policy.
load more comments
(8 replies)
view more: next ›