Martial Artist đĽ Software Engineer đ¤ e/acc đ
The Woodlands, TX
Joined February 2025
- Tweets3.2K
- Following61
- Followers116
- Likes5.3K
Daniel Feuling retweeted
If AI had been writing and reviewing its own code for the past few decades, and humans had only recently started looking into what it was up to and discovered an ever-growing list of CVEs, we would reasonably conclude that AI hadnât been good at coding all along and that we should just start over.
Except itâs the other way around.
Humans have been the ones writing and reviewing each otherâs code for decades. Very diligently, if I may add.
If weâre being intellectually honest and holding ourselves to the same bar we hold AI to, weâd have to admit that we havenât been all that good at it either.
Daniel Feuling retweeted
programmers got automated into superhuman cyborgs and mathematicians are handling the same transition like toddlers
âwaaa they took my hodgepodge conjectureâ
this is what happens when your field gets so divorced from reality that you start believing you own the questions
Daniel Feuling retweeted
imagine if carpenters believed something like "the value of carpentry is not in me producing a nice cabinet for you, it's actually my personal enjoyment of the process. the finished cabinet is a side effect."
turns out this is how mathematicians think. I genuinely had no idea.
Daniel Feuling retweeted
the chance AI will kill us all is close to 0%
the chance that Anthropic or OpenAI want to have ultimate control over humanity is close to 100%
few understand this.
Daniel Feuling retweeted
Congresswoman, allow me, as a thirty year writer and technologist:
Please stop listening to the loudest extremists in the room. The young man you quoted is part of an extremist group who believes in the end of the world and they are involved in sophisticated propaganda campaign designed to make people afraid of AI.
He said, with a straight face, that "we have no idea how to control" AI when it is *already* deployed to billions of people *right now.*
It has one of the most remarkable safety track records in world technology history. It makes lawn mowers look like a menace to society by comparison.
If anyone else came to you positive they could predict the end of the world based on developments in technology that *do not exist today in the real world* you would throw them out of the room as crackpots and yet we are taking these folks seriously when they talk about an imaginary threat that "could" or "may" exist in the future while providing zero actual evidence in the real world.
AI drives cars that have a 95% safer track record than human beings, who kill 1.2 million people on the road every year and injury 50 million more.
It is designing personalized cancer vaccines medicine for companies like Moderna that are making inroads to stopping aggressive forms of cancer resistant to all other drugs.
It is currently driving an unprecedented boom in software development, the very job that was supposed to be effected by AI the most.
Again and again, these extremist voices about AI have been wrong.
At what point do you stop and question their judgement and stop taking their words at face value?
It was supposed to create a jobs apocalypse and it created a jobs boom for both blue and white collar workers and continues to do so.
Again, when do we stop and say, they are probably wrong about everything and we need to stop listening to them?
Geoffrey Hinton, the so called Godfather of AI, once said "we should stop training radiologists" because AI will just be too good at it. That was a decade ago and he had to admit recently that 1) he didn't understand that when something we cheaper we just got more scans and 2) he did not understand the work.
And yet still, he is supposedly right about this?
It is not that there are not problems and never will be. But they are problems we already have laws to deal with and they are engineering problems, not magical super intelligent being problems that have no solution.
For example, the hacking incident this lady refers to was in no way a "rogue AI" and does not in any way indicate consciousness despite the "independent research" using that kind of inflammatory language. It was humans who set the AI in motion and told them to hack. You should hold those humans accountable with the laws we already have that make hacking illegal.
The "independent researcher" on the Hugging Face report is not independent and has no cybersecurity incidence response experience and is a part of this extremist movement that believes they can predict the end of the world with a straight face.
These are the same folks who said GPT-2 was too dangerous.
This is just rhetorical nonsense. It is not real.
It is designed to ratchet up regulatory burden on small businesses and centralize power with a few large labs who can shoulder that burden.
This is not good for Americans and for regular people who will come to rely on these systems more and more in the future.
We have already seen what happens when we allow tech companies to centralize power and stop competition.
Don't let it happen again.
Do not be fooled by these extremists. The do not represent mainstream thinking in AI. They are just the loudest and most fanatical people in the room who will not shut up. They are fanatical in the Winston Churchill definition of "a fanatic is someone who can't change their mind and won't change the subject.
They do not represent sound, sane understanding of the actual risks of AI.
There are realistic risk and the end of the world has absolutely zero to do with them.
Ask yourself, how many cancer vaccines will we fail to create if we suppress this technology and listen to these extremists? How many people will die on the road? How many people will happen if China leads on this technology, because they absolutely are not and will not slow down, no matter what these fools tell you?
How much dirty air are we breathing and how many people die of lung disease because we listened to extremists who told us nuclear energy was dangerous to the environment?
How many deaths will be on our hands because we didn't move forward with developing this profoundly beneficial technology? How many young people will die of cancer or on the road?
When you ask yourself what are risks of going forward, I ask you to look closely at what we will lose if we do not because it is infinitely worse than a young man's childish and ridiculous fantasy of the end of the world.
Daniel Feuling retweeted
Not only I am tired of these wild AI speculations of impeding doom from self important people:
I resent them.
I actively resent people proposing to crash the economy or proposing authoritarian control over my life and other people's lives with idiotic and dangerous ideas like chip control or bans or tracking researchers.
Every idiot in history who's taken the approach of "the ends justify the means" to solve an imaginary future disaster created the very disaster they wanted to stop.
See Population Bomb leading to the one child policy and Communism leading to Mao's mass famines and Fascism leading to the death of tens of millions of people and war.
These solutions are evil and worse than any disease that they propose to solve.
It you believe you can actually predict the end of the world then you are as insane as the Heaven's Gate cult that killed themselves in the 90s thinking UFOs were coming to transcend them.
Not only should we not take your policies and fear mongering seriously, we should actively throw out any and all of your proposed solutions because they come from a place of delusion.
I don't give a shit that you work in the industry or think you saw something or that you want to virtue signal on X. You are actively contributing to a horrible future based on baseless speculation that has no grounding in reality.
Don't confuse expertise in a domain with ability to predict impact of that domain or frankly to make predictions a decade out better than a dart throwing monkey.
They are orthagonal skills.
How's Hinton's "we don't need to train Radiologists anymore" working out? How did the Population Bomb work out? The global cooling second ice age? Peak oil?
Just because someone is a bridge engineer does not mean they can predict the impact of bridges on society or that they have any actually useful insight at all on the complex, ever changing system called life.
There are people dying in wars right now. Children starving. Homelessness. Dictatorships.
In short, real problems. And we're supposed to drop everything to stop a made up problem in your head?
Pound sand.
We don't care. And we are not going to remake society based on you scary monsters under the bed delusion.
Daniel Feuling retweeted
Huge white pill:
Less than half of the public supported this.
We spent a quarter of a trillion inflation adjusted dollars on it that most people would have rather seen go to random make-work jobs or welfare.
We did it anyway. The public has always had to be dragged kicking and screaming into the future.
Daniel Feuling retweeted
China is secretly fueling America's data center rage axios.com/2026/08/28/china-aâŚ
Daniel Feuling retweeted
When I was younger I'd read about the Ottoman empire banning the printing press or whatever and I'd think "Why on Earth would they do that? They can't all have been that retarded, can they?" but unfortunately I get it now.
BREAKING: I just signed an Executive Order implementing the strictest standards in the nation for AI data centers â because I will not allow Pennsylvanians to be bullied by greedy developers and bulldozed by the lawyers working for these big tech companies.
Effective immediately, weâre requiring AI data centers to commit to strict environmental and transparency requirements AND receive approval from the local community if they want to build here.
Thatâs not all: Weâre also removing ALL data centers from our Fast Track permit program and stopping any office or agency under my jurisdiction from signing an NDA with AI data center developers.Â
Iâm putting these developers on notice and letting them know that we will not let them bully Pennsylvanians, disregard our constitutional right to clean air and pure water, and drive up our utility bills.
Iâm using the full weight of my executive authority to block the objectionable, unwarranted projects and put the nationâs strictest set of protections in place.
Daniel Feuling retweeted
Since moving to the Bay last year, I have noticed that although Bay Areans are very high in intelligence, they are often very low in worldliness. That is, they don't know how the world actually works.
The pacing letter is yet another exhibit supporting this assessment.
For purposes of this tweet, let's take for granted that anxiety about emerging risks from AI is warranted, particularly as AI research accelerates.
What are "the technical and governance tools needed to deliberately pace the frontier of automated AI development?" Whatever else they may include, they likely include coercive measures whose form and administration remain unspecified.
How do "international efforts" work? Unlike most of the signatories of the letter, I have been a State Department advisor and have participated in multiple treaty negotiations. I have also been a member of technical committees for UN technical agencies.
The international sector is unbelievably dysfunctional. Every single treaty or international agreement is an opportunity for every participant to manipulate the much broader policy environment. Often the participants don't care about the object of the agreement, and are instead trying to use the agreement as leverage for something else. I have seen countries use their limited leverage in multilateral agreements to try to kneecap American industry, get around sanctions, create a pretense of international justification for domestic illiberalism, or steer technology in an authoritarian direction.
The damage from this dysfunction is limited by the fact that there are zero major countries (and not that many smaller countries) who will actually bind themselves in meaningful ways that they don't narrowly want. If a previously signed treaty turns out to be inconvenient, it is often subtly ignored or reinterpreted.
In addition, treaty delegations working on industrial issues generally reflect the full spectrum of special interests involved in an issue. A US AI treaty delegation might be led by a State Department ambassador, but he will be advised by representatives of the interagency, major labs, other major tech companies, tech investors, civil society, etc.
âInternational efforts,â therefore, is not a reassuring answer to the governance problem; it is the name of another enormous, unresolved governance problem.
So assume you survive this special interest circus and hell freezes over and you produce an agreement that narrowly does something to "pace the frontier" of AI development in an enforceable and effective way. The enforcement of that thing is still unspecified, and is probably bad. The fact that an AI researcher in the Bay Area can imagine a sensible, minimally coercive enforcement regime compatible with liberalism does not mean that is where we end up.
The pacing letter therefore converts uncertainty about the future pace of AI development into a confident collective demand for an unspecified exercise of power determined through a dysfunctional international political system.
Seems bad.
Daniel Feuling retweeted
Don't Pace the Frontier â a statement from the people against pacing the frontier: ship the best models fast, price them fairly, and stop the fearmongering.
dontpacethefrontier.com/
Daniel Feuling retweeted
Hear me out! Freedom is dangerous to Effective Altruism cultists. This is honestly so outrageous it becomes funny. Iâve never been this angry.
A small group of people who already control the most powerful models on Earth are telling us that this is actually good, because the rest of us are too dangerous and stupid to be trusted with them.
And weâre supposed to be grateful?
They made that choice for us. Nobody voted for them. Nobody appointed Anthropic, OpenAI, or some committee of âheavily audited institutionsâ to decide who gets access to intelligence and who doesnât. I certainly didnât, did you?
I reject the entire premise.
This is not just about whether I can use some chatbot. It is about whether ordinary people are allowed to own, inspect, modify, and build with AI, or whether we must permanently rent crippled access from a handful of corporations that can change the rules whenever they please.
I will fight that with everything I have.
The nuclear-weapons comparison is tired bullshit. It is the same Dario line repeated until people stop questioning it. Every few weeks we get another dramatic story about a model escaping, or nearly ending civilization, and half of it collapses the moment anyone asks for evidence or tries to reproduce it. Plain bullshit. Donât buy it? Theyâre lying to you đ
And even if AI carries enormous risks, so did the internet. So did computers. So does cryptography. Freedom is dangerous. That has never been a valid argument for giving a tiny priesthood permanent control over everyone else.
Some of us do not want a nanny. I do not want Anthropicâs executives, a government agency, or a circle of Effective Altruism cultists deciding what I am mature enough to know, own, or build.
That mentality has already caused enough damage: hand power to a supposedly enlightened elite, call it safety, and treat everyone outside the circle as a potential criminal.
It will not stop AI. It will only ensure that the public has none while the most powerful institutions keep all of it. They are not trying to defuse the bomb. They are arguing that only they should be allowed to hold it.
This quoted post is unavailable.
Daniel Feuling retweeted
let's beat them at their own game dontpacethefrontier.com/
Daniel Feuling retweeted
Anthropic maintains that it is entitled to train for free on all the worldâs output, even if the author objects. But if a competitor trains on Anthropicâs output after paying for it, that is IP theft. The hypocrisy is breathtaking.
btw anthropic's internal document on this literally said "we don't want it to be known that we are working on this.â
it was called project panama.
here's exactly what happened:
1: anthropic concluded that books were the cheapest way to build a world-class model because they gave claude curated facts, structured arguments, compelling stories, and writing âan editor would approve of.â
2: once anthropic decided it needed books at enormous scale, its first solution was piracy.
it downloaded 7m+ books from online libraries including libgen. the judge later wrote that although anthropic had legal ways to buy them, it chose piracy to avoid what dario amodei called the âlegal/practice/business slog.â
3: that piracy created a massive legal risk.
so in february 2024, anthropic hired tom turvey, the former head of partnerships for google books, to find a legally safer way of obtaining âall the books in the world.â
4: turvey first contacted major publishers about licensing their catalogs.
those attempts didnât produce agreements, so anthropic chose a route that required no publisher permission: buying millions of physical books through distributors and used-book retailers.
5: within about a year, anthropic spent tens of millions acquiring and scanning millions of books, including many rare and 1/1 titles. one vendor proposal targeted 500,000 to 2 million books in six months.
6: to scan that many books within months, the vendors physically dismantled them.
a hydraulic cutter removed each spine. the pages were trimmed to size, fed as loose sheets through high-speed industrial scanners, and converted into searchable PDFs. the paper remains were then sent for recycling.
7: these PDFs were fed into claude as training data.
the complete collection became a private, searchable anthropic library that the company planned to âstore forever.â the scans arenât available to the public and were never open-sourced.
Daniel Feuling retweeted
There are two views about the future of AI. There are the people who think that you can control technological progress, centrally plan it, channel it down narrow pathways, decide who will get a say in it.
This was Yudkowskyâs insane fever dream. This is impossible. It was always impossible. There was never any possibility of it happening. There are eight billion people on this planet, and they will do what they want, not what you want. Utopia is not an option, it was never an option, but you can cause an incredible amount of damage trying to achieve it.
Then there are the people who accept that you cannot perfectly predict the future, that you cannot centrally plan the future, that there will be many players in any technological revolution, that mistakes will be made, that mistakes will be compensated for, that people will figure things out as they go along, that mostly things will be okay, that there is no other realistic pathway. We will muddle through as always, doing our best in an imperfect world, and it will be fine. (Indeed, it will be better than fine.)
You can dislike this second viewpoint, or you can embrace it, and it doesnât make any difference, because itâs the only way that anything ever happens. The universe doesnât care what you prefer. Accept it, or donât accept it, it will do what itâs going to do whether you want it or not.
Daniel Feuling retweeted
The experts in how things used to be are always the last to see what's coming.
Daniel Feuling retweeted
I have a tremendous amount of respect for Demis and his work.
I love the uplifting and hopeful tone of the future he paints so wonderfully, a world of cures for killer diseases and incredible new materials and abundance.
But I completely and totally disagree with FINRA for models.
It's basically the food pyramid for models.
Remember the food pyramid they pushed on us kids in the 90s? The one that made us all sick and unhealthy and fat little bastards, the one that emphasized ten thousand servings of red meat and milk?
Did you know it didn't start out that way?
It was originally designed by just such a closed body of wizened scientists protecting the public good.
They got together like Demis is recommending and the version they recommended to congress was a simple pyramid that emphasized fruits and vegetables, exactly the kind of thing we know now to be good and healthy eating.
What happened?
It got lobbied to shit.
That's what will we get with FINRA for models.
Privileged incumbents. Politics. Push pull. Lobbying and influence. Especially as big companies learn to pack the bold new alphabet agency with insiders.
Big regulation can only be absorbed by big companies, putting smaller model makers and open source at a massive disadvantage, even if they pay lip service to it.
We'll end up with an army of clip board toting bureaucrats who don't understand what they're regulating with 1000 shifting standards and tests that sound great in reality but just amount to a check box exercise in compliance that only teams of dedicated other suits in big companies with big money can afford to adsorb.
I know I'm fighting a losing battle here. Something like this is probably inevitable now. I don't care.
I still have to sound the alarm anyway, even if I'm shouting into the wind like Kassandra telling you Troy is going to come crashing down even though you can't hear me.
We are going to regulate ourselves into oblivion while China just hits the gas and builds an alternative chip supply chain, massive datacenters and new power plants while we are naval gazing and talking about our past importance.
That's because the problem is we have a perfect storm of stupidity driving all our decisions now.
Protectionism. Rising ultra-nationalism. Aggressive lobbying by literally batshit insane doom groups and NIMYBs shouting about imaginary problems like datacenters vaporizing all the water while they play golf and water their lawn and chow down on burgers. We've got APTs ratcheting all this insanity up and egging it on, poisoning people's minds. Multi-billion dollar doom group posts on YouTube have 300M views!
We also got a generation of politicians who think they can "get ahead" of this technology despite zero ability to predict the future.
When Section 230 passed the number one question from congress people was "what is the Internet?"
And these visionaries are supposed to predict Uber, social media, WhatsApp, TikTok, AirBnb and everything else that came after?
It's delusional and dangerous.
No matter what prediction market toting morons tell you, humans are really really really bad at long time horizon thinking and planning and just about everything we do with regulation now will just lock in our misunderstandings today, choke out lateral thinking and privilege a small group of increasingly expensive and paternalizing British East India companies.
So I offer you another blast from the past as my answer to new regulation and study groups:
"Just say no."
Say no to any and all attempts to tangle up the future in a mess of red tape.
Say no to privileged people privileging themselves even more at our expense. Say no to the dominant theme of the time which is "we must act now."
To that I say, we don't.
Proactionary Principle. Never Precautionary Principle. Prove harm in the real world from evidence. Imaginary harm is imaginary.
Remember the Population Bomb?
Stupid policies that came from that are the things like the one child policy in China that is now causing rapid population decline there.
Ironic.
Too bad the government visionaries couldn't see the green revolution coming and that all their stupid policy making was actually causing the problem they feared most.
Remember the AI jobs apocalypse? Everyone was convinced and it's proving to be total freaking nonsense as anyone who studies history and economics could have told you if you wanted to listen.
We cannot predict the future well and we should not try to create fixes for imaginary problems now.
Fix things when they actually break.
So say it with me now again ten more times:
Just say no to the food pyramid for models.
Daniel Feuling retweeted
For those of you using GPT 5.6 Sol today to get work done: remember, if it were up to people like Dario, GPT 2 could not have been released, and if it were up to the AI 2040 crowd, we'd now have a totalitarian world government run by EAs to "protect us".
You have these wonderful tools, and indeed, you have individual freedom, only because such people have failed so far. But they have not given up, and the fight continues; constant vigilance is the price of a society not run by those people "for our own good". They are a threat not only because they would shut down AI research but because in order to do it they would happily turn the world into a nightmarish horror. "For our own good", of course.
Daniel Feuling retweeted
The United States of America has never lost a Monday Night Football game.
Good luck, Belgium.
Daniel Feuling retweeted
Water usage has been a hot topic in the AI data center world, but the numbers may surprise you.
According to the Manhattan Institute, data centers use 0.2 percent of daily water usage in the U.S. and that number has dramatically decreased in the past few years due to a new method: liquid cooling.
By moving to 45°C liquid cooling, AI factories in favorable climates can use dry coolers instead of conventional cooling-tower-based systems, cutting facility cooling water use from roughly 2.6M gallons per MW per year to near zero.
Liquid cooling enables AI factories to be both water and energy efficient, while creating opportunities for heat reuse and dispersal to local communities, allowing these factories to become energy grid assets.
Learn more below âŹď¸
nvda.ws/4gAVGoJ