We've got our work cut out for us.
The propaganda out there is already working, and FAR too well.
Just sat next to a passenger who steered the conversation into "how many millions and millions of jobs have already been lost to AI." I chuckled and said, "That hasn't actually happened, in fact the opposite is true,". At that point, she became very agitated and angrily asked me why I haven’t read, watched any of the news.
🙄
At what point is Dario going to go “full Edison” to attempt to prove his case about the dangers of AI?
Thom Kozik retweeted
Dario has written that we need to “pace the frontier,” and Sam has agreed. People may be surprised by my response: go ahead.
You guys are the frontier. By any reasonable metric — market share, revenue growth, model capability — the two of you have a duopoly on frontier intelligence. You’ve also claimed the lead is widening because of recursive self-improvement.
I don’t see what you see in the lab. If the unreleased models are scary enough that you think you should slow down, I support your decision to be responsible.
But stop pretending you need anyone else’s permission. Stop pretending antitrust law has to be suspended so you can form a cartel. Stop pretending you need a regulatory approval process that supersedes product liability. Stop pretending METR is independent when it is intertwined with Anthropic’s investors and staff. Stop pretending you need those same evaluators to police competitors who aren’t even at the frontier.
Most of all, stop pretending the motivation to slow down is purely altruistic. You face massive product-liability exposure if your products enable a truly damaging cyberattack. The market already punishes models that behave in unpredictable or unauthorized ways. After the Hugging Face episode, it is simply good business for OpenAI and Anthropic to trade some raw power for reliability and predictability. Call it alignment if you want. It is also just giving customers what they want.
Pacing the frontier would also create breathing room for a more intelligent conversation about regulation than Bernie Sanders’ “shut it all down.” China is very unlikely to join a global agreement, as you know, and that has to be taken into account as well.
So go ahead and pace the frontier. You are the ones setting it. The easiest way not to build superintelligence is for you to agree not to build it. Demanding your preferred regulatory framework as the price of that will look like blackmail of the public and the political system. So just do it.
If you do, you’ll buy goodwill for the next conversation. If you don’t, we’ll know this was just another bid for regulatory capture — or an election-season psyop.
Just followed what appear to be a couple of @SpaceX Starfall test articles out of the Hawthorne plant and onto the freeway.
@MarcusHouse @Erdayastronaut @DJSnM
I’m sure this is gonna set off a few of my friends, but facts are facts. If you want to protest “excessive water use”, go ahead - Might I suggest however, you start where there is *genuinely* a problem.
Thom Kozik retweeted
Panic about AI water use rarely comes with context.
Suburban sprinklers in the United States use more water in two days than all the data centers in the country use in an entire year.
Newer cooling systems can bring on-site water use close to zero.
humanprogress.org/the-ai-lan…
Thom Kozik retweeted
Two reports from @SamLyman33 and @bitcoinpolicy document a coordinated foreign influence campaign against American AI — running through CCP state media, a Shanghai-based Marxist's nonprofit network, and foreign billionaire dark money that has funneled $2B+ into US advocacy infrastructure.
AI doomerism isn't as organic as it looks.
We’re a bunch of blind Geppetto’s, thinking that we know what the puppet should look like.
Only 26% of psychological studies have been shown to be replicable. It’s the ultimate hubris to think we’ve cracked the human mind enough that we can now imbue AI with something we’d understand as “intelligence”.
I don’t know if we’re smart enough as a species to even recognize it if we saw it.
Innate biases along with ego-driven desire to publish crap have been poisoning the social sciences for decades. And this is the “rock” upon which we’re going to construct our limited interpretation of how a mind can/should work?
And keep in mind, this is coming from someone who’s downright giddy, most days, at how fast these tools keep evolving. I can no longer imagine working without them, and I don’t want to. I’m not arguing we should slow down—we won’t. And I’m not calling for well-intentioned legislation that paves the road to hell while accomplishing nothing useful.
All I’m suggesting is that we start seasoning the conversation with a little more humility: “as far as we know…”
And definitely, do not simply “trust the (deeply suspect) science”
🤖 Made with AI
Looks like even the specialized voice models like ElevenLabs are getting trounced by the latest models out of China
Today we’ve raised $52M Seed and we are announcing the public launch of S2.1 Pro.
>It can clone a voice from 5 seconds of audio
>2x faster than Cartesia & 1/6th the cost of Eleven Labs
>most expressive model with word level control over emotion, intonation, pacing etc
We support frontier AI companies including HeyGen, LiveKit, Retell, Sanas, and OpenArt all run our model in production.
If you're a business and we can't cut your voice AI costs by 50%, we'll give you 1 year of Fish Audio for free.
Book a demo: s.fish.audio/tmapke
To celebrate our first birthday, we'll give you 1 month of S2.1 Pro for free. Like, retweet, and comment “Fish” to get it.
AI's PR problem is worse than we think.
You know it's bad when a morning DJ here in LA says "It's not worth destroying the planet with these datacenters just so we can have bunnies jumping on trampolines”.
What can/should we as a community be doing to stave off the torches & pitchforks crowd, coming for their perceived “monster”? Simply trying to convince them 1:1 that they’re wrong isn’t going to do the trick, especially when you’ve got so-called leaders like Gov. Hochul and Sen. Sanders spewing misinformation.
Thom Kozik retweeted
Legacy Media types are calling this Alex Karp interview a “crash-out” so that’s your first clue that he is actually saying something extremely insightful. He is articulating what real “AI safety” looks like in the enterprise.
Not abstract alignment research or certification by a government-run DMV for AI. Real AI safety for businesses is the ability to control their own data, model weights, and compute — so a frontier lab can’t hoover up their proprietary knowledge and turn it into their next product.
As Karp explains, technical customers want “control over their compute, their models, their data stack, and their alpha. They want to know they own the means of production, and it’s not being transferred to someone else.”
Don’t think that can happen? Just look at Figma. According to The Information, Anthropic “blindsided” its then-business partner with the launch of Claude Design. Figma’s founder said Anthropic had not been “consistently honest” with them. Anthropic’s chief product officer had even served on Figma’s board until three days before the launch of Claude Design. Figma’s stock has fallen sharply this year while Anthropic’s valuation has surged.
This isn’t an isolated example. Anthropic has launched Claude Science, Claude Security, Claude Legal, and of course Claude Code — each expanding into categories previously served by companies building on top of their models. The pattern is consistent: watch where value is being created, then move in directly. Dominate the model layer, then use that position to capture the most lucrative verticals.
Dario has argued that open source models powerful enough to compete with Anthropic are “dangerous.” But dangerous to whom? Not to enterprises that want to retain control over their data and workflows. Dangerous to a business model that benefits from customers having few real alternatives at the model layer.
As Karp exposes, true enterprise safety isn’t trusting that a lab’s future roadmap won’t include your business. It’s retaining the ability to choose — at the model layer — who gets to see and use your alpha.
Palantir CEO Alex Karp on what customers actually want, the real business of frontier labs, and the importance of open source models:
“What the technical customers want is control over their compute, their models, their data stack, and their alpha. They want to know they own the means of production, and it's not being transferred to someone else.”
"Who owns the data? Are the prompts secure? Is this being transferred to you?"
"If it was so valuable, and I can make you a billion dollars, wouldn't I say I'll make you a billion dollars and I want 30%? Why are they charging for tokens if it's so valuable?"
Chinese open-source LLMs (DeepSeek, Qwen, GLM, etc.) perform well, but Westerners are willfully oblivious to the CCP’s role & influence shaping them.
Benchmarks are impressive, but so is just how naïve Westerners making use of these models are about the formal role the CCP takes in shaping their strategy and ideology. By law, these companies are *required* to have an internal CCP Committee to make sure certain that the work produced fits within party objectives and priorities, right down to political indoctrination study sessions on Chairman Xi ‘s Thoughts for the staff. The internal CCP Committee also shapes;
• Personnel & leadership alignment: Manage/advise on Party member development, key appointments, and ensuring leadership stays aligned with Party priorities.
• Compliance & content guardrails: Shapes how models handle “sensitive” topics per Chinese law — aligning with socialist core values, national security rules, and CCP content requirements. It affects data curation, RLHF/safety training, and what the base model refuses or biases toward.
• Chinese law requires generative AI to avoid content that violates “core socialist values,” endangers China’s image, national security, or incites subversion. This applies to the company’s platforms even when accessed from outside China.
The weights may be public, but the organizational incentives, reinforcement learning, and guardrails they applied aren’t.
Thom Kozik retweeted
If you are on the verge of AGI or ASI, why isn’t your model smart enough to recognize espionage distillation in real time? You say “cure cancer in a few years.” Isn’t sniffing illicit distillation quite a bit easier than curing cancer? Why write letters to DC? Just use AGI.
Thom Kozik retweeted
Replying to @RoKhanna @BernieSanders
It's honestly astonishing that we have to waste brain electricity even thinking about retarded communists in 2026.
Grow up.



















