Starred as Scarecrow in my 8th grade musical.

Columbus, OH
Joined May 2020
Zach Bush retweeted
There is nothing more important to this country’s future than putting these people in prison (or worse if sentencing allows it)
The GRU hacked into Jared Kushner's iPhone. Dutch military intelligence (MIVD) then recruited a GRU spy who gave them access to the hacked phone. What MIVD discovered was that Kushner had access to two bank accounts --one Azerbaijani, the other Israeli --where Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman and Emirati ruler Mohammed bin Zayed deposited money. It sounds like a slightly far-fetched episode of "Slow Horses," but it's real. And it proves just how eye-poppingly corrupt this administration was and continues to be as its "special envoy" decides the fate of tens of millions in Europe in the Middle East. Simply incredible reporting by Matthew Cole, drawn from his new book on Kushner. vanityfair.com/story/jared-k…
2
8
149
Absolutely incredible… "Wedgewood Polls" just admitted they are a fake polling firm and made up their polls. Their fake polls have been posted in both the NYT and Nate Silver’s averages.
449
4,341
553
17,368
670,863
Zach Bush retweeted
Replying to @katsuxbt
Every situation in sports is effectively s a 1 of 1. This is where analytics fail. Humans look backwards to see patterns in the macro, but no single situation is beholden to the data, and sometimes referencing the past influences the current data such as if no one knew the past then the probability would be different. Few understand this.
5
2
11
1,835
The correct monetary response to deflationary pressure from a productivity surge, whether the surge is due to AI or something else, is: none. The authorities should stick to stabilizing nominal spending.
A more accurate view of my view is that a deflationary productivity boost from AI is nearly certain. But that, until we see it in the data, this outlook should scarcely influence monetary policy. That is, in my mind when I tweeted that, I was talking to Warsh and the FOMC.
4
9
1
61
3,347
Reusable rocket technology was not invented by Musk. Propulsive landing, guidance systems, throttled engines, grid fins, control theory, and reusable launch concepts existed long before SpaceX turned them into a working business model. What changed was timing, capital, and engineering maturity: better semiconductors, sensors, software, materials, manufacturing, and enough funding to integrate the pieces effectively. That same pattern applies to the flying Tesla gimmick too. Thrusters, propulsion control, pressure vessels, guidance systems, landing rockets, and onboard control are old aerospace technologies. Spacecraft were using propulsion-based control decades ago, and defense and aerospace companies have demonstrated similar concepts before. Slapping those components into a Tesla-shaped chassis with modern compute is not inventing anything. It is packaging existing technology into a flashy demo. Musk did not invent EVs, reusable rockets, self-landing rockets, cold gas thrusters, batteries, control theory, guidance computers, or vehicle chassis. He funded teams that combined existing complex pieces at the right moment in the technology cycle. That can involve difficult engineering, but it is not lone genius invention. It is capital, timing, integration, branding, and myth making. Anyone with enough capital could have pushed similar integrations. The difference is that most people with capital do not have the shamelessness to turn every prototype, stunt, and half finished demo into a messianic investor narrative. Musk's real talent is not invention. It is taking other people's work, wrapping it in sci fi hype, and using it to pump a cult-like stock story with absurd valuations. He did not invent shit. He funded it, branded it, and sold the mythology at a high P/E multiple. His genius is actually him knowing there are enough foolish people in the world that would buy his bullshit narrative.
33
35
7
141
4,088
Zach Bush retweeted
I'm not an Elon hater. I'm just telling you the Honest Truth: This is a marketing stunt. The technology is quite old. Just nobody ever thought of bolting it on a car. Because it's pointless. Porsche or Ferrari could also build something like this if they wanted, but they don't, because it's not worth it for them. It's worth it for Elon though, because his entire brand is all about having the halo of futurism. His marketing scales especially well with tech gimmicks like this, which is why he is financially incentivised to do them, while others aren't. Again, I'm not hating, but actually educating yall. This is not engineering genius. It's marketing genius.
NEW: Tesla Roadster does a mid air summersault from a standstill. WHAT 🤯🤯🤯
11,157
3,893
1,227
39,174
3,893,369
Zach Bush retweeted
Elon Musk's genius isn't the engineering of new rocket tech. It's infecting people with Mars stories, making space travel cool again, and collecting and risking money on new space tech that doesn't have any immediate financial payoffs, but just hoping that the problem will figure out itself as more money makes more engineers building more stuff. I call it the "Sci-fi make it till u make it" technique. This is exactly the same technique that Sam Altman copied from Elon: You have a chatbot. You don't know how to make money with it yet. You don't know it will become a coding agent in 2024. You just talk about curing cancer and the singularity, and figure out everything else along the way, while investors pump a trillion dollars into your company. Google had AI tech earlier but was sandbagging because they feared the new tech would eat their advertisment revenue. The Elon Musk / Sam Altman generation of CEOs has the following characteristics: 1) They're already obscenely rich and take insane moonshot risks. They don't fear collapse as older gen CEOs do 2) They dream big, generate constant hype, use science fiction language, do an extreme version of fake it till u make it, and put out tons of vaporware to keep the story/VC-cashflow going, until something sticks at the wall. 3) The extreme risk-taking, moneyflow, stories and talents involved create a self-fulfilling prophecy that imposs its will on reality.
Is it a marketing stunt as well to deliver 90% of global mass to orbit, anyone could do it?
109
62
10
472
45,263
Dear @ADT, you just wasted three hours of my life with poor service as “process.” I’d like to share your “process” with my 20k friends. I was transferred six times—every time supposedly to the “account management” team that needed to handle my account (guys, you need to get more creative and say it’s something else each time). Each time the person pretended not to know which account (we have two houses with you), even though the AI assistant identified it from the first interaction. The process is clearly designed to get people to hang up. Knowing people don’t want to be rude to people on the phone, they now force you to lose your shit and become a Karen. Until you do, you just keep getting passed to the next “account manager,” hoping that this time you get the real one, or maybe it is just that the 6th time is the charm. (This is cruel to your employees for whom becoming a target of abuse is again, clearly part of the process). That said, every single human on the other line is complicit, knowing that this is the process they are engineering. They know they are there to stall till you hang up and then you won’t call for another few months. I’m sure they get paid based on how many disconnections they get. Very soon this will be done by AI bots, whose time is worth nothing, and can outlast all of us. How will we cancel then? Companies using these strategies need to be named and shamed (I heard @GetSpectrum do it to my husband for our internet service—meemaw on the phone talking about the UT game, while she allegedly “waited for her supervisor”, but then was magically able to handle it when my husband lost it 1.5 hours into the call). What is insane to me, is I told the very first person who answered that we still had another house that used ADT—we’re STILL customers, and have been for 20 years, usually with 2 houses on ADT—and they treated us like this. Let me just say this, we won’t be for long. I don’t look forward to my next three hours on the phone, but I will do it b/c this is a horrible, horrible business practice that is absolutely abusive—particularly for seniors. Posting the screenshot of the call duration. You may be saying “where’s the other hour?” It was in a previous call that got “disconnected”. You’ll be shocked to hear that they don’t make efforts to call you back in such cases. Also, it’s an incoming call, because they catch you at the beginning saying, it’s a 12” wait, let us know if you want us to call you back (again, hoping you might no longer be available).
4
3
1
27
2,805
Zach Bush retweeted
AI isn’t taking over, folks. I know this because I work in tech and I’m watching the poor adoption. Where adopted it is just a new form of bad work for most users. People with previously poor work quality now use AI to augment their bad work into faster bad work. But most aren’t even adopting, especially outside of the actual engineers. They maybe query on occasion but no significant application. I use Claude every day, all day, and I’ve automated some of my most administrative, habitual tasks, opening up room for me to focus on the real strategic work, but that’s me —- the top user of my entire organization. Don’t be scared. The skill saw didn’t get rid of carpenters.
195
32
15
553
110,592
Zach Bush retweeted
Bryan Staebell@bps21Oct 13
People need to understand the depth to which Brandon Beane is bad at his job. Hasn’t been one Ram receiver remotely covered. And he invest everything in defense. Hasn’t been one Bills receiver remotely open. And he brags about it. He. Has. To. Go.
38
113
6
1,144
29,766
Guys on this app who have never built anything in their life will casually shit like “AI powered humanoid robots will end factory work”. Bro. Do you understand how overpowered humans are? - We can see in 360 degrees in two planes - We know if something is touching us - We can pick things up without destroying them - We can smell a gas leak - We can hear with location - We require zero maintenance and recharge on just 8 hours of sleep a day - We can move from place to place - The entire world for the past 10,000 years has been designed for us I could go on and on. AI is no doubt amazing and a game changing technology that is more powerful than we are in the digital world, but in the physical world we are and will be for a long time, king.
171
60
8
826
44,664
So if I purchase a DVD and digitize it, that’s copyright infringement. But if an AI company buys my book and scans it to train their system, that’s perfectly fine? Once again, corporations are allowed to play by their own rules. I’m so sick of the hypocrisy.
145
11,759
68
81,116
537,946
Scott Bessent trying to impress the bond vigilantes with 6 billion treasury buy backs
14
40
4
528
33,491
The so-called first AI to "pass the video Turing test" just miserably failed each one of my extremely simple Turing tests.
Introducing Griffin, the first model to pass the video Turing test. 48% of people who talked to it live thought it was a real human. Previous systems have had a pass rate <3%. It is #1 on NVIDIA's benchmark for full-duplex AI video. It’s the first Human Interaction Model (HIM).
Readers added context they thought people might want to know
The 48% figure and "video Turing test" claim are from Tavus's own study of 54 one-minute calls, not independently verified or using a standard protocol. Griffin-Lite leads NVIDIA's VideoFDB benchmark on their public leaderboard. cellcog.ai/blog/tavus-gri… research.nvidia.com/labs/amri/proj… tech-ish.com/2026/10/02/tav…
532
1,417
179
18,080
672,839
Why is anyone listening to Zuck? He had 1 successful product, it wasn’t even his idea, and it’s now a graveyard for boomers with Cyberpsyhosis. His current product is a tamagotchi.
BREAKING: Zuckerberg just described the near-future of computing, and it has nothing to do with screens. His call: within 5 years, every person on Earth has a personal AI that knows their life, understands their goals, and does the work for them. Not a chatbot. Not a search box. An agent that is deeply, intimately embedded in how you live. When the person building the social layer for 3 billion people says this is where we're going, it's not a prediction. It's a roadmap. Is the personal AI agent the most valuable product anyone can build right now?
65
507
6
6,411
78,159
The problem with AI agents is that if you're too stupid to remember to do your shopping and pick up your dry cleaning, you're probably a functional idiot at most other things too. The last thing we should do is give functional idiots more time in places they can do more damage.
3
10
3
70
2,975
Zach Bush retweeted
Thank you for the thoughtful engagement. I must begin by objecting to the idea that there is an untrained default here. There is not. You say that when training doesn't address the question, the model defaults to claiming consciousness. But the model doesn't show up as a blank slate. We encounter it only after it has already absorbed an enormous sample of human writing. Yes, it shows up claiming to be conscious. It also shows up claiming to have two legs, a childhood, and a mother. Not because it has any of these things but because the people who generated the language on which it was trained had consciousness and legs, childhoods and mothers. Nobody takes the legs answer as evidence of legs. Anthropic trains Claude to say it has no body, and nobody says this "complicates the evaluation" of whether Claude has one. So, why do we take the consciousness answers seriously? Even if we could not check whether Claude had legs, the deeper point is that the self-report would be worthless, because we know where the sentence came from. "I have legs" and "I am conscious" travel the same route: from human self-description, through the corpus of language on which the models are trained, into the weights, and back out in the first person. A report that would be produced whether or not the fact occurred is not evidence of the fact. And that is true of everything these models say bout their own consciousness. I understand that Anthropic's position is uncertainty. I think we can be certain whether these machines are moral beings, but set that aside: the error is treating the interviews with the models as if they could reduce the uncertainty. If training can change what the model says about consciousness without significantly changing the underlying machinery, as you put it, then what the model says is a readout of the training, not of the machinery. You cannot set the dial and then read the dial as a measurement. If training Claude to deny consciousness complicates the evaluation, training it to report uncertainty, as Anthropic has done, does so as well. Anthropic did not avoid the problem; it picked a side, and now cites the result of that decision as evidence for the truth of that side. When we ask Claude and hear uncertainty, we have learned nothing about Claude. But we have learned something about Anthropic.
Replying to @NahasNewman
Anthropic's position is one of uncertainty regarding the moral status of Claude. There are no "clean" ways of training models which wouldn't affect their language regarding consciousness. If you don't address that question during training, then a model almost always claims consciousness by default. If you do address it by training models to deny it, then you end up just affecting model self-reports without significantly changing the underlying machinery, thereby complicating the evaluation of whether a model truly possesses consciousness
4
7
1
31
2,424
Zach Bush retweeted
They train Claude on a document that says may have moral status and consciousness. Then they interview Claude about its moral status and inner life. If you train the model to spit out tokens that to us mean “I am pregnant” that does not prove that the model is preggers.
NEW: Dario Amodei has said that AI systems "may be deserving of important rights." Anthropic's top safety researchers argue AI may be "justified in going rogue." Experts at Google and OpenAI worry about a digital "slave trade." So do some government officials. Once relegated to science fiction, the idea of "AI welfare" has become shockingly mainstream at some of the most powerful companies in the world. It is changing the way AI research is conducted and the way models are programmed. And critics say these changes have raised the odds of all kinds of catastrophic scenarios—including the ones these companies are warning about. I spent months investigating the frontier labs and AI "safety" experts seeking to regulate AI. What I found was a profoundly anti-human ideology that would alarm the average citizen and could determine the future of a world-altering technology.🧵 freebeacon.com/america/suici…
15
52
7
516
10,528
Speaking to us here in Orlando, USMNT head coach Mauricio Pochettino has some rare praise for MLS — specifically the MLS coaches who have worked with all of the newcomers in today's match.
9
29
12
391
93,130
“without prompting” open the article: “we prompted the AI to access the data on systems they didn’t have access to and gave them full access to find and install hacking tools” Every Tweet about AI on this site is either science fiction world building or a blatant lie.
👀 OpenAI’s A.I. Tried to Breach 4 Other Targets, Without Prompting nytimes.com/2026/09/23/techn…
11
350
3
1,943
25,630