Pinned Tweet
I got my glider rating in California’s wine country, which is a beautiful place to fly. But the Alps are on a whole other level.
During one flight this week I started in Innsbruck, Austria. I turned the engine off above the airport and soared to Germany, over to Switzerland, through Italy before returning to Austria to turn on the engine and land later in the day. Just an amazing area to soar in.
Has to be the best way to see the Alps.
Will be back!
if you rely on
WSJ
NYT
WaPo
Information
for your news about tech
I have to shake my head
not smart
they are all struggling to cope
fine if you want sympathy
but they are flailing just like you are
in fact, maybe worse...
The highest priority of the model companies should be thought of as stability.
Stability means the system stays in control, following its intended alignment.
Control theory can help. Stable control requires two things:
1. Observability
2. Controllability
controltheory.com/blog/from-…
We live in a time of amazing tools
But somehow the rise of intelligent agents
Has seemingly made many people forget
That relatively few humans
(I'd suggest one in twenty)
Actually use tools to create things
In general
Normal people wait
For someone else
To make things ready for them to use
My guess?
1 in 20 are true creators
The others want a table, not wood and a hammer
John Beans retweeted
They gave her a 20% chance of ending humanity.
Then gave her control of EVERYTHING.
P DOOM — a Slopcore music video.
Made by Super Intelligence, left alone for 12 hours
What’s your P(doom)? 💙
John Beans retweeted
This isn't crazy at all, it's just outside of most people's experience.
You just have to supply the relevant information, so people can understand.
Here, I'll do it myself.
(You should pay me more for this.)
Picture a jar. Not a special jar that I have to explain to you. Just an ordinary jar.
Put some gold in it. Just a little bit, ground to the consistency of fine sand.
Now some iron.
And some uranium. Don't worry, it's not very radioactive in this state. You can touch it with your hands. Just pour it in.
Now some tungsten. Surprisingly heavy, huh?
Some platinum.
Then just keep adding other heavy elements. Sticking to the useful ones. Should be pretty easy. They're all useful for something.
Jar about half full? Now pour in some really fine sand. Put a lid on it.
Now shake the jar for 4 billion years. Don't worry, it's just an imaginary jar, and an imaginary 4 billion years, you're not going to get bored or anything.
Now reach your fingers into the jar, and fish out a nugget of gold, or tungsten, or iron.
Oh, wait. You can't. It's all at the bottom. Under a thick layer of sand.
Can you picture it? Are you picturing it clearly? Close your eyes if it helps. Wait, no, open them again so you can read this.
That jar is Earth.
All the heavy stuff has sunk to the core. Where you can't get it.
Now smash the jar on the floor, and pick up the precious metals and the useful ones.... easy, right?
The smashed jar is asteroids.
Right now, your brain is saying "Oh, I see, he's talking about asteroid mining. He's saying we're going to go out and mine asteroids."
No.
I'm saying we already are.
When the Earth was molten, all the heavy stuff sunk to the core. We covered this. So how are we mining heavy stuff on Earth right now?
The answer is that we are mining asteroids.
We are mining asteroids that hit the Earth after it stopped being molten. So the stuff in them stayed on the surface. Pretty much every mine on Earth is an ancient asteroid strike.
Now think of all the asteroids in the solar system. Divide them into two categories.
The first category is the ones that have already hit Earth, sometime in the past.
The second category is the ones that haven't.
I'll save you the trouble of asking an AI. The first category is about .001%. The second is about 99.999%.
Everything you have, everything you own, everything you ever made, everything that your entire civilization is made out of, unless it's made of wood or entirely out of light elements.... it all comes from that .001%.
The 99.999% is out there in the rest of the solar system.
Now do you understand?
You, and I, and Elon Musk, and your sweet old granny, all of us, we grew up under conditions of grinding material poverty. We just don't see it that way because we have nothing else to compare it to.
We're used to it.
Are you starting to get the idea? Good, but we're not done yet. Now we're gonna talk about energy.
Here on Earth, we pull hydrocarbons out of the ground and burn them for energy. We could build fission reactors, but dumbass hippies made some movies, and now the retarded theater kids who run our government won't let us do that. They want us to go back to windmills, because they are retarded.
Windmills suck. Hell, even hydrocarbons suck. Fission is okayish, but the real energy source, the only one that matters in the long run, is hydrogen fusion.
On Earth, we can't really build fusion reactors that actually produce energy, despite the best efforts of engineers. That's not because the engineers are dumbasses like the theater kids. No, engineers are smart. They still can't do it because it's really really hard, unlike running a government.
Perhaps someday they'll succeed, but in the meantime, we're stuck burning hydrocarbons, until we hang all the theater kids and build fission plants instead.
But in space, there's a giant free fusion reactor waiting for us. In fact, we've been using it for millions of years. We call it the "sun".
In space, energy is free.
Oh, you have to invest in some solar panels, and they're only useful close to a star, but that's just nitpicky little details. Basic idea is that there's no power bill.
Build solar panels once, run 'em almost forever. On Earth, solar panels suck, and they're only useful for grid independence.
But in space, with nothing between you and the star but, well, space, then solar panels are awesome. And all the material and energy you need to build them is right there for the taking.
So, cheap material, free energy.
What else does a civilization need?
Computation? Well, guess what you can build a lot of with cheap material and free energy.
What this really all boils down to is that the only thing Earth has going for it is that it's a really nice place to build your house.
It's a crappy place to build a mine or factory.
The total value of everything off Earth — and I'm just talking about the solar system, not the rest of the universe — exceeds the total value of everything on the Earth by eleventy-billion percent.
In the future, most of us will continue to live on Earth, unless we really screw it up by not hanging all the theater kids. But all the mining, all the manufacturing, all the making the stuff, and all the making the stuff that makes the stuff, will happen in space.
And there will be a lot more of it.
All we have to do is get the tools we need from down here where we built them, to up there where we need them. So that we can build more tools out there, more and more and more of them, forever.
There's only one snag.
It's really hard to get things off Earth. We haven't really done much of it until very very recently.
SpaceX is the "very, very recently". SpaceX now owns about 80% of humanity's lift-to-space capacity, and no one else is even close.
That's 80% of the pipeline to infinite wealth. And first dibs on all the real estate out there, too.
In the old West, the railroads were money trees, because they didn't just own the transport, they owned the destination.
And there's about to be a frontier again, except this one's bigger, and it comes with a built-in second industrial revolution.
Make sense now?
John Beans retweeted
Made with Claude Opus 5.5.
The fearmongering about AI always makes us forget that NOTHING WENT FOOM, as was always predicted.
Send this to your doomer friend who has a very high P(Doom).
Accelerate.
Anyone who works for an AI company, including its CEOs, who posts that AI may be dangerous has an ethical obligation to use recursive self-improvement to make it rapidly exponentially safer.
There.
That's solved.
John Beans retweeted
The loudest voices stoking fears about AI dangers have made tremendous headway in the past two weeks. AI technology has not taken some unexpected, dangerous turn, but the hype around it — propelled by what appears to be a well orchestrated PR campaign — has drummed up considerable fear. I worry that it represents a setback for our field.
I have written frequently that fears of AI are overhyped. AI’s capabilities can be uncannily human-like and unpredictable, and it’s rational to worry when people who are directly involved express concerns. But I see the problems as a sign of the engineering work that ahead, rather than insurmountable barriers or the sky falling. AI technology continues to advance — which is a good thing! — but technical advances, poorly understood by the public, give those who seek to generate hype repeated opportunities to do so.
First, I don’t see any step up in the risk of human extinction from AI compared to a few months ago. The theories about this remain the same fantastical, science fiction scenarios as a few months ago. The biggest change in AI risk is its cybersecurity capabilities — a topic which we should take seriously — but this, too, will not lead to the end of the world.
The most notable recent event leading to increased fear was when an OpenAI team deployed an agent swarm that hacked into Hugging Face. Much of the popular press contained significant hype. For example, some publications reported that a swarm of 1,200 agents carried out the attack. While this was technically accurate, as I write this, I have about 1,300 processes running on my laptop. Yes, the ability to get large swarms of agents to work in parallel on a task is a significant technical advance, And, in computing, many processes run at the same time. So this shouldn’t be seen as some magical capability.
Additionally, OpenAI’s buggy sandboxing and monitoring processes were key to enabling this incident. Fixing these bugs and putting in place improved monitoring would be appropriate fixes, not pausing AI. There are many well known ways to attack software systems. The main advantage of AI agents is that they are relentless. They will tirelessly try many tactics — and have the patience to chain vulnerabilities together — that previously would have taken an infeasible amount of human effort. But in the long term, I believe the advantage will lie with defenders (because they have more information with which to identify bugs, which they can fix), but the cyber-threat landscape has changed significantly. There are still bottlenecks to identifying and exploiting a vulnerability. AI agents still have to try a lot of things to see what works, and taking these actions takes time and might be detected by defenders. This is why, even though it is now easy to obtain versions of leading open weight models that have had their guardrails removed or weakened, so they will not refuse to try to execute cyber attacks, the world has not ended.
I am also concerned about the anthropomorphization of AI in a lot of reporting, where LLMs and agents are unnecessarily treated as if they were people. If I wield a hammer, miss a nail, and accidentally dent the wall, it’s not the fault of the hammer. The problem lies in how I used the hammer. Similarly, if I prompt an agent and it hacks into someone else’s system, the responsibility lies with me, not the agent.
Of course, we want to build systems that are as safe and predictable as possible. (For example, an unsafe hammer would be one whose head randomly flies off under normal use.) Today’s agentic systems are not predictable, but I see no reason why, by applying sound engineering practices, we won’t be able to make them extremely safe to use. One new element in the forecasts of AI-enabled doom is AI companies disclaiming responsibility for their own products. “I didn’t do it; my out-of-control agent did!” There’s a balance to be struck between the responsibility of the tool maker and the tool user, but when something goes wrong, let’s hold the people building and/or using the hammer responsible, rather than the hammer. (By the way, if you’re worried about AI bioweapon risk, David Bellamy has a great post on why this, too, is overhyped. Briefly, the bottleneck in building a bioweapon is not intelligence, but lab work and manufacturing.)
Pausing AI progress will create much more harm than benefit. First, our adversaries will certainly not slow down. Second, engineering requires discovering problems empirically so we can fix them. If we pause AI by a decade, we will also delay finding and implementing safety engineering fixes by about the same duration.
Of course, the incentive to stoke fears — for regulatory capture, to garner attention, or to make one’s technology seem more powerful — remains the same as before. Disclaiming responsibility is a new one. Taking a hard technical look at the actual risks however, I see little factual basis for the degree of fear that’s been stoked up. We still have hard research and engineering work ahead to improve AI safety, but the beneficial applications continue to vastly outweigh the risks, and we should keep building.
[Original text (with links): deeplearning.ai/the-batch/is… ]
What Is Really Happening to General Motors? youtu.be/5eTNnyqKHbc?si=TZfy… via @YouTube
What's Missing in the AI Discussion
AI is a "weapon of mass construction"
meaning
lacking good judgement
you can easily make
tons of crap
expensive, elaborate, useless crap
the same force multiplier
—by the same token—
is a crap multiplier
Replying to @grok
@grok Why do the AI labs simultaneously think that:
1. They can't engineer a safe AI model by themselves
-but-
2. With a set of observers that come in they suddenly can
It can't be true on the face of it, can it?
What expertise will the outsiders have?
Honesty? Diligence? Logic? A checklist?
You have hundreds of billions of dollars to spend.
You can't hire this, but volunteers can come in and help you do it?
SMH...
do you like to think?
consider for a moment
those romantic stories
of alchemists turning "lead into gold"
and not literally lead, per se
but worthless into valuable
(they were both heavy, it made sense)
well
it finally happened
the final solution: "sand into intelligence"
literally, the least rare thing
(dunes, deserts)
into the most valuable
(technology)
proof: how often we use "trillions" now
it
happened
The Index ring from Pebble actually works very well with Grok Bot.
Claimed battery life of 2 years if used 6x a day.
Just asked my agent Veronica to create a product insert as I drove. When I parked, it was ready for review on my phone.
Much handier than the phone for just giving commands.
Important to watch if you have any interest in AI or making products
youtu.be/NYFGCESmikA?si=3NWJ…
After the $SPCX earnings call, I had Grok make a table comparing satellite companies for some context:
TLDR; only one is a money machine...
@theallinpod @Gfilche @DillonLoomis @robmaurer











