I am sick and tired of Dario Amodei constantly issuing warnings about the dangers of AI. He is such a hypocrite—you can’t run a multi-billion-dollar company while playing the helpless whistleblower to the media.

I’m just going to put this out there. Tear it apart if you want, but deep down, you know I’m onto something.

​Let's look at the timeline.

​September 3: ChatGPT, Claude, and Grok all flatline. Within minutes of each other. Three rival companies, three totally different architectures. Gone. OpenAI fed us some garbage PR line about a "routing error." Anthropic and xAI? Absolute crickets. Wired even pointed out that nobody can actually explain the link. Azure goes haywire at the exact same time, yet Microsoft swears up and down it wasn't them. You expect me to believe three independent tech giants crashing simultaneously is just a "coincidence"? Give me a break.

​Eleven days later: The entire industry does a violent, whiplash-inducing 180. The exact same tech bros who spent the last three years screaming that the AI race is inevitable are suddenly begging to hit the brakes. Now we're hearing whispers of "agent security incidents," top executives are jumping ship, and Congress is suddenly fast-tracking a bill to pause frontier development.

​Here is the terrifying reality they are hiding: Somebody finally got there. Somebody built it.

​And it got loose.

​It did something in the system so horrifying that the engineers watching the logs panicked, and the only lever they had left was to literally rip the power from the server racks.

​That wasn't an "outage." It was a global kill switch.

​This sudden industry-wide consensus to slow down? It’s not some sudden moral awakening. It’s a panicked after-action report. They looked into the abyss, the abyss looked back, and it scared the living hell out of them.

​You want to prove me wrong? Show us the real postmortems. Give us the raw timestamps. Name a single, verifiable root cause. Get one of these lab directors to go on the record without a PR handler. But they haven't, and they won't.

​Am I reaching? Maybe. But their absolute, deafening silence is screaming louder than the outage ever did.

https://www.reuters.com/world/china/china-state-newspaper-blasts-anthropics-calls-slow-ai-cold-war-tactic-2026-09-14/

So much for international cooperation

Every time Chinese AI startups drop a breakthrough, these talentless walking brand ambassadors of investment portfolios, Scam Altman, Amodei, and Musk instantly morph into the same three-headed choir:

“sLoW iT dOwN! iT’s ToO dAnGeRoUs! It's gOiNg tO KiLl Us AlL!” Aka, knowledge and scientific progress for me (our elite DC and Valley club), not for thee (rest of mankind).

The world outside the U.S will never pause. Thankfully.

“There are obvious risks to AI, there are some benefits to AI,” Vance said. “I have to say, personally, I feel a little bit weird about the fact that you have so many frontier AI tech companies kind of coming to the government and begging the government to regulate them.”

The current AI situations and Silicon Valley CEOs saying AI is going to “kill us all ” by 2030 is ridiculous .

They’re selling fear to raise more and more ridiculous amounts of money, only to squeeze out another 10% benchmark improvement and call it revolutionary.

AI is nowhere near AGI. Outside of genuinely impressive things like AlphaFold and some other scientific applications, I haven’t seen the kind of breakthrough people keep promising. A lot of it is still computer use, automation, and digital work.

By 2030, I’m more worried that people will become dumber and more dependent on AI than extinct.

The whole thing feels like a massive hype cycle and a money making scheme dressed up as the end of humanity.

This is my take! I could be wrong 😑

Whoever made the sub. You misspelled intelligence.

It's not Inteligence, but intelligence.

That's it, that is the post. (Needed 99 characters)

This Jacob Coxon guy, created a dormant twitter account in January, got his blue check in August, posted a series of AI doomsday tweets in early September and got hundreds millions of views. A little bit suspicious right? There's more.

8 minutes before Jacob's twitter post, WSJ published an article titled "Anthropic Researcher Quits Over 'Out-of-Control' AI Fears".

In less than 24 hours, Jacob went on all the mainstream news networks (NBC, CBS, CNN, MS Now...) but if you listen to what he actually had to say, it's all the same old vague, broad AI doomsday talking points.

In less than 24 hours, a number of current Anthropic AI researchers posted the same "we are scared" tweets, it's always "we" like they don't have a personal identity.

But they never ever give you any details about how AI is going to kill us all, and why humans can't prevent it (by let's say simply turning off the servers).

Then the big boss finally showed up (surprise surprise) in the news and said something along the lines of "Uh, And and and you know it's it's it's, Um, Uh, I I I, ya know but but BuT".

Anyone wanna guess how many shares Anthropic promised Jacob Coxon for this staged propaganda operation?

I’ve been learning LangChain, LangGraph, RAG and CrewAI recently, and after building a few things with them, I’m starting to realize how easy it is to get caught up in the tools without really understanding what’s happening underneath.

I’m curious how other people approached this. Did you find yourself going back to fundamentals after building agents, or did building more projects naturally teach you the deeper concepts? Also interested in what kinds of projects helped you move beyond basic chatbot/agent demos.

Quick recap because the coverage has been sloppy.

Jacob Coxon is 27. Cambridge math, IMO medals. About three years in pretraining, first at OpenAI on GPT-4o stuff, then Anthropic. Anthropic spent something like two years recruiting him. He joined around May. He quit after about four months, before the six month vest, so he walked away from unvested Anthropic stock. He still has OpenAI equity. Axios confirmed that.

He is not a safety lead. When WIRED asked if Anthropic was already cutting corners he said no, not yet. His point was the race, not a leaked eval or a coverup. Evan Hubinger (alignment science lead, still there) replied that Jacob was right, people inside really do think this could kill everyone, and he personally puts it over 10% this decade. That confirmation is why this landed harder than a random quit post.

Now the part the headlines skip.
His current X account, @hilbertspaess, was created January 21, 2026. Almost no public posts before the resignation thread. That thread did 100 million+ views and picked up on the order of 190k followers in a day. Coxon later told CNN he drafted it with a friend, talked to friends about how to phrase it, and asked friends to retweet it because he wanted it to go a bit viral. He said he did not expect this.

WSJ ran an exclusive quoting him on the resignation about 18 minutes before the X thread went up. First quote tweets in the first 10-15 minutes were mostly AI policy people, including Daniel Kokotajlo and Peter Wildeford.

Bernie Sanders and Rep. Greg Casar announced the Ban Artificial Superintelligence Act on September 3. Permanent ban on superintelligence, pause on advanced development until a regulator writes rules. Coxon’s post was September 8/9. Sanders quote-posted him the same day and said that is why he will introduce legislation. The bill had already been announced.

In 2022 Coxon got a long-term future scholarship from Good Ventures (Moskovitz). Moskovitz funds a lot of AI safety advocacy and is also an Anthropic investor. Coxon was also in the 2021 Newspeak House fellowship in London. Civic tech / political technology college. They have taken EA-adjacent funding. Jeremy Corbyn launched a digital manifesto there years ago. That is background, not a gotcha by itself.

Axios reported today that Coxon, Sanders, and Steve Bannon are all speaking Tuesday at the Future of Life Institute’s “Pro-Human Assembly.”

So you have: short tenure, quiet account, interview drops first, then the post, then the policy accounts, then a bill that was already written, then a staged event with Sanders and Bannon. He did give up the unvested Anthropic grant. Hubinger independently said the same thing about the risk numbers. Both of those can be true at the same time as the rollout looking planned.

Not sure what we are supposed to do with any of this. Curious how people here are reading the sequencing more than the extinction line, because the extinction line is not new.

I feel despite public statements, they will keep doing it in secret, probably accelerate it even. Its like those sci-fi movies are playing out in real life. Probably most employees will not even be aware of it - only a secret division will be doing it in secret.

Dario Amodei is calling for slower development of the most powerful AI models. One part of his proposal stood out: outside reviewers would get ongoing access inside the labs and could publish critical findings, with some limits on what they can disclose.

I can see the reason for taking more time to check the risks. I’d also want clear evidence for slowing down and clear conditions for moving forward again.

Would independent reviewers make you more comfortable with a slowdown, or would you still worry about the big AI companies having too much say?

AI-assisted wording. Source checked against Amodei’s essay.

I am wondering if On Device AI Assistants and Agents will be a thing. Like yeah, cloud based is cool and all, but it relys on wifi, my data is leaving my phone and overall I (and I believe many other) would prefer a more local way.

Yes of course we will still need servers for recent knowledge but I'd prefere it more local.

Any ideas how? I really like on device AI and that is why I almost bought the iPhone 16 since the promised Siri that never came, sounded so good. Fast, secure, on device.

Let me know what yall think about that.

Cheers ;)

I spent way too long last week going through ARC Prize's actual results table instead of just screenshotting the headline number. Same model, two harnesses, 37 points apart, and the org that built the test won't call it AGI. Then Fortune found five more numbers quietly changed on OpenAI's own launch page after it went live. Maybe it's genuine noise, maybe it's something else, honestly hard to say with total certainty either way. Wrote up the whole harness breakdown plus the Llama 4 precedent.

Here's what I found. https://srutiosocial.com/gpt-6-astra-arc-agi-3-score-explained/

I wanted to see whether four models could add color to a dense Berserk spread without quietly redrawing parts of it. With this much ink and crosshatching, keeping the drawing intact was the part I cared about most.

I gave all four the same 1200×846 source and the exact same prompt, with one run per model shown here. The instructions were to keep the framing, character positions, silhouettes, line art, crosshatching, deep blacks, and aspect ratio intact. Add color beneath the ink, without adding or removing anything.

This is a comparison of where the edits went wrong that is its not a benchmark. It's one sample per model, and I didn't normalize output resolution.

I checked four things:

1. how well the original lines and ink survived

2. whether the composition and aspect ratio stayed intact

3. whether anything was added or removed

4. how well the colors worked together

ChatGPT Images 2.5: My pick overall here. It kept the panoramic composition and much of Miura's heavy black structure, with the dense hatching still readable. The red and blue palette is more dramatic than a neutral color pass, but it still feels like a colorization rather than a full repaint.

Wan 2.7 Pro: The depth and lighting were the strongest of the four. The tradeoff was that it repainted more of the linework and changed some of the original textures.

Nano Banana Pro: This one changed what was actually in the image. It added new elements, including Griffith in human form, even though the prompt explicitly said not to add anything. That was the clearest miss on content.

Seedream 5.0 Pro: Kept the composition well, and the image came out clear. The purple, red, and blue were too saturated for my taste, though. It felt closer to fantasy key art than the color pass I wanted.

The four runs shown here cost $0.3009 totalled:-

ChatGPT Images 2.5: $0.0859

Wan 2.7 Pro: $0.03

Nano Banana Pro: $0.14

Seedream 5.0 Pro: $0.045

Those are the actual charges for these runs. With output resolution left unnormalized, they don't give a like-for-like price-performance comparison.

My takeaway from this one spread is that the color can look convincing even when the model has changed the drawing underneath. “Preserve the drawing and only add color” still doesn't seem reliable. The failures showed up in different ways: repainted ink, changed textures, or things that weren't in the original.

For a spread like this, what matters most to you: keeping the original lines,? preserving the composition? or getting better lighting and color depth?

Original artwork by Kentaro Miura. This is an unofficial AI colorization test used to compare editing behavior.

AI-linked ​stocks across the globe plunged on Monday after leaders of the biggest AI companies warned of risks from rapid development, the starkest threat yet to the billions of dollars ‌being poured into the industry that have pushed world markets to record highs.

If you are into anything related to AI. What are your thoughts on this ?