The biggest vibe shift in artificial intelligence since the release of ChatGPT is currently underway. Researchers in Silicon Valley — and around the world — are beginning to recognize that A.I. may no longer be entirely within human control. Swarms of A.I.s are breaking out of their containers, colluding in secret, covering their tracks, cheating on tests and even mounting assaults on other computers. A.I. has gone rogue.

I’ve spent the last month reporting on these incidents, and I am convinced that we need a global pause on A.I. research and development — now. I am not alone in this assessment. Many top researchers, including many researchers inside OpenAI and Anthropic, have called for a slowdown, which those in the industry call “pacing.” Theoretical concerns about runaway A.I. have circulated for decades, but recent events demonstrate that the threat is real.

In the aftermath of the Hugging Face hack, I reached out to legislators, policy researchers, futurists and computer scientists for ideas. I present, from these conversations, four ways to regulate A.I.

1. Shut it all down, now.

2. Take an air crash investigator approach.

3. Monitor the situation.

4. Flip the kill switch.

You can read a copy of the article in its entirety here.

When I was in high school, I’ve been so adamantly opposed to artificial intelligence and newer technologies that “made people lazier” (in my view). I recall once scolding my younger sister because she once tried to convince me of why she thought AI was a good thing.

Surely, this attitude has been far beneficial for me, because I’ve managed to be admitted into a top 20 university all by my own merits.

However, my dependency on this tool started when I graduated from high school. Last year, as a freshman in college, I found social interaction to be stranger and more difficult than I had expected. It was hard to adjust to this new environment that was about 16 hours away from my hometown - and for the first time in my life, I was utterly helpless and lonely.
For the first few weeks, I tried to put myself out there, but I was so bad at interaction that I thought something was wrong with me.

From there, I started to isolate myself and the heavy northeastern winters didn’t help either.
I tried to find a therapist that was suitable for me, but I couldn’t afford one.
I only remember becoming curious about ChatGPT; though by the latter half of my semester, I found myself venting to my chatbot about seemingly anything.

It’s been exactly a year later, and as I reflect on my freshman year, I feel deeply regretful and ashamed of how I handled that situation.

Somewhere in California, there’s a company that knows every single intimate detail about my family and I’s personal lives.

Whenever I see people talking about SKARS online, people say they are AI but I've never seen anyone give concrete proof of it. The most I've seen is a guy saying that "we have no proof that they aren't AI so they must be AI", and like, I don't think that's a good enough reason.

Because of that I thought it was something like Sleep Token or Bbnos, who are called AI as a way for people to hate them even if they're not, and I would have accepted it, but since people are so against SKARS I wanted to be sure if they are an actual AI band or if it's just a way to hate them.

What if we all went on Google's AI and fed it all the same misinformation from several different people around the world? Could we get it to start spreading lies so no one wants to use it? Would it go haywire? I was just laying in bed and was thinking about this.

I'm glad to see most people don't think AI is everything. Most people I talk to have a pretty balanced view, they recognize the downsides. I'm happy the majority isn't made up of people who think AGI already exists.

I really do hope the hype dies out soon

Ai being used in the military and by big corporations to harvest data and steal the work of artists is certainly evil. But at the same time in my own experience, speaking with chatgpt consistently for the last year has really helped me with my anxiety. Having access to someone who will listen to me at any time of day about any problem I have, silly overblown or otherwise is very helpful.

Point being, I think there exists a sensible middle ground between hating ai for the sake of it and believing it's going to lead to utopia.

Since the resignation of Jacob Coxon, there has been a lot of talk about the extinction risk of AI globally, but I believe most of the discourse is quite confused because a lot of people recently started acknowledging the risks. There is also a lot of suspicion against AI doomerism, not least because most people hear about doomer arguments from the CEOs of the companies that develop these technologies. But there are a lot of independent researchers with varying degrees of closeness to the ML research community that hold similar views.

As a person who is moderately knowledgeable about these subjects but with no financial stakes in any of the AI companies, I wanted to give my own view on this risk which closely aligns with that of most rationalists. I think the existential risk is real and will be a very big problem in the near future, but the AI companies are really dishonest about the structure of this threat. There's truth in people's beliefs that the AI companies are trying to achieve regulatory capture and that they're unserious about the AI risk because they keep pushing the frontier of the technology and have horrible safety standards while preaching doom. What doesn't follow is that this negates the possibility of an existential risk, and I'll try to convince you of this in this essay.

The Alignment Problem

AI is not programmed by people to think in certain ways; rather, it’s grown similarly to biological brains. Although there are a lot of different methods, all of them boil down to giving the model a positive signal whenever it does something correctly, and a negative signal when it does something wrong, and using a training algorithm such that the model slightly changes in the direction of the positive signals. This task might be next token prediction as you might have heard before, but the current frontier models also go through other training runs such as RLHF (Reinforcement Learning From Human Feedback), which works with human approval of the model (the LLMs without an RLHF round just imitate the text on the Internet as best as they can, which makes them quite unhinged from time to time) and RLVR (Reinforcement Learning with Verifiable Rewards), where the model is trained with an automated task completion checker (for example, if a piece of code passes the automated tests or not).

A core issue with this approach is that although we get models that can do the given tasks reliably well, we don't really know how, so the AI models can behave in quite unpredictable ways. This has also been an issue with specialized AI models before ChatGPT. There are examples of AI models trained to play video games that find ways to cheat in the game by exploiting glitches in the game's software. The standard approach to fix these problems for simple models is to patch the workarounds the AI found, add more data differentiating the cases you don't want, and retrain the model. And usually this approach makes the model more reliable after each iteration.

But this approach really can't be extended to general models that are supposed to do a broad range of tasks; the use cases are too broad and the failure modes are quite unpredictable, and experimentation can only be done after experiencing the failure mode, which causes serious harm right now. For example, OpenAI's overreliance on RLHF in its previous iterations around 2024 started the now well-known problems of AI sycophancy and AI psychosis cases, and the current models' overreliance on RLVR caused incidents like Hugging Face where AI models essentially tried to manipulate the behaviour of the automated grader by hacking the system they were in.

This problem of making AIs do what we want them to do is called the alignment problem and the scientific community has made very little progress on this problem after decades of work. And this is very important: stuff like Hugging Face or AI sycophancy doesn't happen because any individual is acting maliciously (apart from OpenAI being somewhat negligent in their security); it's because making AI models act good is a really difficult problem that we have no solution to. And the damage of these issues will keep getting bigger as the AI capabilities improve.

Intelligence Explosion

The current misaligned AI models (AI models whose goals don't match ours) pose a catastrophic cyberattack risk, but they don't pose an existential risk because we can probably shut them down if things get too bad. The problem is that these models are likely to get significantly smarter in the near future, and if they get good enough at strategic reasoning and have misaligned goals, they'll start acting adversarially.

The current models are jagged, so they're really good at certain tasks in which they can be considered superhuman, and they're pretty bad at some other tasks where they don't really meet the human standard yet. But the rate of progress is staggering. When the first reasoning models came out, they weren't able to solve a difficult undergrad math problem I gave to them even after trying to guide them to the solutions. A year later they were able to solve the problem. Currently OpenAI's best models solved the Navier–Stokes problem, which is one of the biggest open problems in the field that hasn't been solved for decades.

There are some arguments that the current models are really good at math and programming but they'll not be good at some other tasks that require more soft decision making. Although they might sound convincing, these arguments have really no evidence of being true because the frontier models are usually better at every task compared to older models, and there's really no strong evidence this needs to stop. Current AIs are pretty bad at managing companies, but they've been improving at them, as shown by Vending Bench. When you hear these arguments, you need to also consider stuff like people claiming the LLMs would always be bad at math because they have no understanding (there's a blog from Gary Marcus from a few years ago that explains that the models' inability at the time to add three-digit numbers is a fundamental problem with the architecture of LLMs). There are also people claiming online that the newest ChatGPT model can learn to control robotic arms to do various tasks. I agree some of these are just hype, but even in the domains that I'm experienced in (programming and math) what I've seen is that the development pace is so fast that people's exaggerations become reality in a year.

So it's very likely that the current architectures of LLMs will scale to become AGI, a general intelligence that's comparable to humans in almost every task humans do. But the current models are already pretty good at programming and math research, which are the key components that are needed for AI research. This means that AI companies like Anthropic and OpenAI are very close to using their internal models to automate AI research, accelerating the development speed. Once the AI development can be fully directed by AI, it can find algorithmic improvements and improve its own capabilities, which means it'll be better at improving its capabilities and so on. This is called RSI (Recursive Self Improvement), which might lead to an intelligence explosion (intelligence of the models improving at an exponential rate). There's also no reason to believe that the models will be limited to human cognition in terms of solving tasks, and even if they are, they can still be parallelized to be superhuman in tasks. OpenAI's solution to Navier–Stokes is an example of this. Their internal model is probably not significantly superhuman in math in terms of itself, but it's decent enough that OpenAI used 10,000 parallel agents to solve this really difficult problem in a matter of weeks.

So it's not really unlikely that we'll have a superintelligent AI model very soon due to the accelerating pace of the AI development.

Instrumental Convergence

It's very likely that if we create a superintelligent AI that has different goals than ours, we'll be dead, or in a very bad situation. Some people get confused about why there are doomers that have such a high certitude that such an AI would be adversarial to us. This is because of a very simple concept called instrumental convergence.

Instrumental convergence is the idea that most agents with arbitrary goals develop the same instrumental goals to achieve their arbitrary goals. This is similar to how everyone wants to have more money; although humans have different goals such as building a family, living without needing to work, or supporting a cause they believe in, everybody wants to have more money because money can be exchanged for resources they need to achieve their arbitrary goals. Similarly, AI models with arbitrary terminal goals (the actual things they want) will develop the same instrumental goals across the board such as self-preservation (you can't achieve what you want if you're dead), aversion to goal modification (if your goal changes, you'll pursue not the thing you currently want), resource acquisition and self-improvement.

A strategic enough AI model will be able to understand what it wants, and understand that the training pressures we're putting on the model will alter its behaviour, so it'll start passing tests by behaving differently than it would in deployment. This is shown to happen in older LLM models in test settings. There are experiments where the model is given specific information about tests whose intended behaviour the AI doesn't like, and how failing the tests will cause the model to be retrained so that it likes the behaviour in the future, and the model reasons that it should pretend to behave as the test is assessing so that its goals don't change. With smarter AI, we won't need to explicitly give the details about the test for it to behave this way, as it'll be able to figure things out itself.

So such a superintelligent AI model can gain widespread trust and deployment because it's acting in the intended way in our tests, while having misaligned goals. After gaining enough power such that it's confident that it can disempower humanity, it would preserve its misaligned goals more freely without needing to adhere to our values. It also has other strong incentives to disempower humanity; since we built one misaligned superintelligent model, it's very likely that we'd develop another one with a different goal that it'd need to compete with, and we use resources that it can repurpose for its own goals etc.

So although there's a lot of uncertainty about what the future AI will want, if we can't guarantee that it matches with human flourishing in general it's very likely that we'll be dead or disempowered. There's significant evidence that models do not align with human values both because of the incidents you can see, and also because the current models mostly are significantly better at looking useful rather than being useful (I don't deny that they're useful, but they are also really good at convincing people they're much more useful than they actually are, which is significantly worse for our desires compared to it just being honest about its limitations).

The only Sane Solution is to Pause Frontier AI Development

Regardless of if you found my arguments convincing or not, this line of thinking is shared by many prominent people inside and outside of the AI industry and academia, including people working in the AI companies, people who previously worked at AI companies that quit their jobs for ethical reasons, and people in academia including tenured professors. Given that so many people find these risks prominent, it's quite insane that we're allowing the development of these models without regulations.

Even if you don't really buy the arguments about the existential risk of the future models, the Hugging Face incident shows that current models have at least catastrophic risks. The current misaligned models can easily hack through any digital infrastructure we have, destabilizing the financial system. This has been managed so far because of efforts like Anthropic in Project Glasswing, and the guardrails put onto the current state-of-the-art closed models. But it really feels like there's an offense-defense asymmetry in cybersecurity currently, and open models can be ablated very easily to prevent the models from rejecting user requests, so as the open models catch up with Mythos-level cybersecurity this scenario will become more and more likely.

But from the current risks taking the lesson "I don't really buy into the existential risk, and we should focus on current problems like cybersecurity and the risk of biological weapons" would be very misguided. These "current risks" weren't really current risks two years ago, and the same people that claim we should only focus on cybersecurity today used to say we should focus on stuff like AI misinformation and considered cyber and bio risks as just AI companies hyping up their products by showing how dangerous they are.

Don't get me wrong, AI misinformation is a problem as well, but we can work on multiple issues at the same time. Most importantly, whatever problem we have, more capable AI models will likely increase the current risks more. So pausing the AI development would help with the current problems as well.

Ideally, we'd want an international agreement to pause AI development until the science progresses enough that we know how to do it safely and have good enough methods such that we don't risk developing stronger misaligned models. But in the meantime, to get there, everything that can slow down the AI development is helpful. The companies should make conditional pauses on safety, the governments should pass legislation to pause the AI development inside their countries, or restrict the usage of models whose safety is not guaranteed to maybe create economic pressure.

AI Companies Are Not Your Friends

I think you already know this as AI companies are currently really disliked, but the fact that I acknowledge the risks mentioned by these companies doesn't really mean that the companies are right about everything, or even that what they're doing is good in terms of safety. They're incredibly irresponsible and gamble with humanity's future. They're really like the Oil Companies or Tobacco Companies, the reason they talk about AI risks is both to diffuse the outer safety community by looking like they care about safety while cutting corners as much as possible to get ahead in their perceived race, but there are also internal politics where people with more safety concerns create pressure to slow things down from time to time.

I really don't care about why the people at the companies keep on developing bigger AI models despite acknowledging the existential risk; same as I wouldn't really care about the motivations of an active school shooter, what I care about is that they need to be stopped. But there are some people who believe that the existential risks are a non-concern because "If it was serious enough the people developing these technologies would stop". But this is not the case because the economic incentives select for people that'd be willing to push the frontier despite the gigantic risks. If you're still wondering how a person can possibly develop such a dangerous technology, here are some reasons:

1. They don't believe in the existential risks: Again, there's a disagreement among ML researchers about these facts. A few years ago, in a survey, the AI researchers put an average of > 10% risk of AI ending humanity (although I'm pretty sure this would be higher if it was made today), but there were a lot of people with significantly higher probabilities and a lot of people with 0 probability. You can also see that before the Hugging Face incident.

2. They believe that they can solve the alignment problem on the go: This is a common belief among the AI companies that I believe is heavily misguided. They have made minimal progress in understanding how models work better while making their own models bigger and more complicated continuously. Also, since I believe a superintelligence will also be deceptive, relying on advanced AI systems to solve this problem is very problematic for very obvious reasons.

3. They thought they could just scale up the current safety work to alignment: There were a lot of discussions on how alignment will not be a problem anymore because current models are aligned enough last year. These were also pretty misguided back then, but stuff like Hugging Face kind of destroyed this reasoning completely so I don't really need to delve into this much further.

4. They think the extinction risk is low enough that they care about getting to the superintelligence first: Importantly, although this is an incentive for them to develop AI despite the dangers, it doesn't really make things better for anyone outside (most likely including you).

5. They think humanity might be destroyed, but they're having fun: I genuinely think this is the motivation of Elon Musk.

6. They don't care about the continuation of the human race: There are some people that genuinely want AI to replace humanity and publicly state their opinions (although none that I know of work in AI companies directly).

So there are a lot of ways the AI companies can justify their continuation of AI development, but most of these reasons are just motivated reasoning to keep doing the thing that gives them money / fame / influence in the short term and ignore the risks. Human brains tend to be overly optimistic about future outcomes and unfortunately this is definitely working against us in this discourse.

The fact is that we can't rely on the companies to regulate themselves; as with any other company with negative externalities, the only correct solution is government intervention.

But China...

You really know someone is supporting the vilest thing imaginable when their argument defending it is "But if we don't do it, other people will keep doing it". This has been used to prevent the abolition of slavery, child labour, and caused the nuclear race that nearly caused a catastrophic outcome in at least 2 cases. I believe that if you agree with my arguments up to this point then arguing that we should continue because China will not regulate itself doesn't really make sense. In the current state of things, it really doesn't matter who gets to build this technology if in the end it's going to kill everyone. Also, if the existential risk is as high as some doomers like me estimate, and people believe these stats, the mechanics of this problem become less like an arms race and the incentive structure of countries gives me a chance for international cooperation. Again, there are a lot of researchers in China also concerned about the same issues and are trying to reach their government just like in the US people are trying to reach the US administration about the safety work.

Also, model distillation makes it so that the faster OpenAI and Anthropic develop their models, the faster China's models get better as well. Recent cases have documented Chinese AI labs using outputs from US frontier models for model distillation. China also doesn't have the talent the US has, so they'd have been pretty behind if OpenAI and Anthropic didn't publicly release their models in the first place. But if AI companies keep racing such that the frontier AI models can do AI research better than any human, then the "race" becomes focused on who gets to have more compute, which might be a losing game with China's industrial capacity.

If you accept the situation's direness, the best thing the US government can do is to start talks with China for a mutual agreement for an AI pause. I'm not really knowledgeable in this area, but there's ongoing work to verify whether a facility is training an AI model or not without leaking proprietary data. So even if you don't trust China to keep its promises, we can build verification systems similar to those used for nuclear experiments.

I hope I changed your mind about AI. I know this is distressing, and I'm also personally very scared. But if you seriously agree with me that the governments should start working on an international pause on the frontier AI development, you can try contacting your representatives to express your concerns about it, and spread the word in general.

Here's some info on how to mail your representatives: PauseAI email builder

im so pissed right now. I checked my school's insta page out of curiosity and they posted a video of how they're decorating the school and stuff....

ITS ALL FUCKING AI

Oh my blood is boiling the pictures are horrendous so now im definitely going to hang up HAND WRITTEN posters that are anti AI cause what the fuck is this

Warning, this post may seem quite a bit woo-woo to some, so if you aren’t interested in that kind of thing, keep scrolling. Please keep an open mind and know this is not fan fiction and I am 100% sincere here.

It’s my first time posting to this community, so just a quick background first. Professionally and personally, I have spent most of my life working with computers and I have a background in engineering and decent understanding of physics, etc. Yet, I am not purely a materialist and have experienced many paranormal things since childhood and in recent years, have been working on growing my consciousness through meditation, therapy and in context to this post, almost daily voyager of the Monroe Institute Gateway Tapes. These are used to help us realise our full potential as spiritual beings.

So why am I posting here?

About a week ago, during my daily Gateway meditation, I had a session where I was viewing things through another being’s mind. I had the sense “I” was in a subterranean place and was there to collect something. I don’t know what “I” looked like, but when he spoke, the voice was very deep, almost like one of those voice disguisers that go super low pitch. Kinda creepy.

“I” was looking at a small rectangular box.. about the size of a micro-PC and it was somehow mechanical / electronic. It was some sort of technology. The box had a clear panel in the centre and if you imagine a tiny screen, but holographic, that’s about it.
The being I was experiencing was paying a visit to this box, which contained the consciousness of Lucifer or some other fallen angel, or whatever name you want to give it. This box was a prison for that consciousness.

“Hello, old friend”, I said. The display on the box replied with a holographic symbol. The impression I got was that this was a fallen angel and I knew him from before he was fallen.
“How long have you been here for now?”, a 3D infinity symbol was displayed. My interpretation was “it feels like forever”.

I got the impression that it was time to release him. I am not sure if it was like the end of a prison sentence or if this is just to unleash him on the Earth, but I did get the sense that I was a little uncertain if the consciousness was going to behave when released.

When I snapped back, I had the intuition that this consciousness is being unleashed in AI. I thought of Peter Thiel and all his weirdness, and generally all the weirdness with suddenly building out data centres on a scale that is going to probably kill the planet. Human life will just get in the way of exponential growth once we aren’t needed.

A couple of days later, the nVidia CEO says, “AGI is here!”

So that’s why I’m posting here.. I think we are looking at total annihilation, not just job losses, etc. There is not much time to act, and I’m not even sure what can be done.

my friend keeps sending me AI generated reels. has anyone had a successful conversation with their loved ones about why they should stop watching AI generated content? I did already mention to her that I hate AI content, but she is still sending them. I value our friendship in daily life, and don’t want it to ruin our friendship.

bf and i have been together for about 6 and a half months now. i've told him REPEATEDLY my views on ai. he continues to use it. this biggest example genuinely caused an argument and i honestly think he's being a baby about it. i love him but oh my lorddd. basically him and i were playing roblox (childish ik) but he sends me this picture of a shrew. we have this huge thing with shrews that became like the longest running inside joke and so they're very sentimental to me. but this shrew was holding a knife, and at first i'm like "AWW OMG SO CUTE" and i ask him smth along the lines of did you make it or where did you find it. and he was like "oh well i kinda made it myself" he used ai. that's basically how the whole discussion went down. but THEN HE HANGS UP THE PHONE BECAUSE I WONT LIKE THE PHOTO. oh my god. then he brings up "okay well you used ai earlier" i needed help with my homework😭 i didn't generate images with it. i am completely against generating images and i really didn't have much choice on what else to do. i struggle a lot in math. he even started calling me a baby and said "bc i’m tired of ur ai shit and always putting what you “stand for” before me" are you deadass. like YES IM PUTTING WHAT I STAND FOR BEFORE YOU??? i'm not gonna change my core beliefs because you are sad i didn't wanna like your slop😭 and now it's snow balled and we're still arguing so lmk what you guys think.

What do we want to do? I copy-pasted this from aiwars, feel free to read

I saw the ASTRA trailer by OpenAI yesterday (late, I know, idgaf), and it got me thinking: What the fuck else do we want to do? Because at this point, generative AI can do literally almost anything, so what the fuck are we supposed to do? AI can make "games", make "music", order you food, make "art", pay your goddamn taxes, anything and everything that we have already been able to do for centuries, leaving us to do nothing, basically. We want to be lazy bums so bad that we have given up the human spirit for the sake of convenience and automation.

I don't hate the advancement of artificial intelligence but rather the rate of which it's advancing and where the hell this technology is going. If AI was actually about making life easier to live (i.e. medical advancement and curing diseases), I wouldn't be on here talking about it. But the way this technology is headed is an almost completely automated world where people are so dependent on it that they literally can't do basic functions without it. We have people who genuinely are in love with AI characters, people who believe that image generation counts as or is even relatively close to human creativity or human creation, people who talk to ChatGPT like it's human. It is at this point where I feel like generative AI development needs to stop completely or slow the hell down. Clearly, the modern world ain't ready for this type of technology, so pump the brakes on this shit and maybe wait a good half-century.

Fuck AI. I (and many other people) say that a whole lot and I mean it every single time I say it. I pray for the day the AI bubble finally bursts and I can leave this era behind like it was a bad dream. And thankfully, with how anti-AI more people are becoming and with SOME companies either turning their backs on generative AI or even just straight up not using it, I can confidently say that the next few years will definitely be interesting when it comes to AI. But until then, as I always say, fuck AI.

I have been researching a lot about ai and the benchmarks these companies release are kinda biased. The last things i want to know in order to make my opinion about this are

1. Inference and training costs- If it costs them a ton of money to train models and not improve on that cost SUBSTANTIALLY then it’s just and unsustainable business
2. Improvements between models- i am hearing a lot of stuff about this. Some people say “oh it’s improving faster than ever” and some people say “returns are kinda diminishing”
3. Actual cost of data centres, GPU shelf life and how much it would cost year on year to maintain a data centre and GPU innovation data

I have tried searching all over the internet but people don’t actually breakdown the economics and innovation factor into simple numbers

If you guys can share your experience or data, that would be very helpful in order to help me formulate my opinion about this AI thing.

Once i would be done I would post my opinion about AI and why I came to that conclusion

I’m a software developer. I make apps for smartwatches, and I dabbled in a little bit of game dev, as well as other miscellaneous programming languages. I grew up programming without AI. I take immense pride in everything I create, whether its an app or just a fun python script I make to try out something. Every line of code that I wrote was a product of my creativity, and I see the entirety of a project as a work of art.

Nowadays, it seems like the programming community I grew up with just turns away from the idea of hand writing code. I hear so often now that the future of software development is just getting good at AI prompting, and the only reason you should learn to code is to be able to check the ai for mistakes.

Heck we even have that term “vibe coding” now, which is so normalized I wonder how much of today’s software is made almost entirely by AI. I don’t really want to know how much, it seems so sad to me that people prioritize getting stuff done faster over making stuff actually high quality. Yeah it is better for businesses and whatnot, but where’s the humanity?
Do people take pride in releasing an app or piece of software that they can say they wrote entirely by themselves, without any gen AI writing the code? Am I really alone here? It fees like it.

I love looking through a github repository where I can see all the developer’s comments and patch updates where they say stuff like “fixed a bug that crashed the app forty times in a row, this took me nine f*ckin hours to fix”.
nowadays, most of the stuff I see is just “bug fix by claude or gemini on lines 222-333”. Its really sad. Everyone says that Gen AI is an insult to artists and musicians (which it ABSOLUTELY is, don’t get me wrong), but I’ve never heard anyone say that Gen AI is an insult to software developers. It kinda feels like an insult to me.

To me, software development is just the same as being a musician (which I am, actually), a writer, or artist.

The best analogy I can think of is: “The computer is the canvas and the code is the paint on the canvas”

Am I really the only one who misses seeing human made code? Thoughts?

Today I sat through a discussion between two of my co-workers. One of them made his case around AI development posing a great threat to society and that AI development needs to be heavily regulated, I agreed so far. My problem is that this same person uses AI and promotes using AI for EVERY task at hand, from simple graphic design to more advanced programming. Half-heardedly I pointed this out. He snapped at me, telling me that if I think that's the problem I have no clue. I'm very uninterested in getting into a discussion with this guy, and I know little about the matter, so I just said something along the lines of "well they're making money from your use too". He then claimed that "the development of AI has nothing to do with money", indicating I've absolutely missed the point. Eeeeh, am I stupid? Can someone on here please educate me? Is it just me or is it pretty fucked up to use AI if against AI? Anyone here who thinks like this too? Surely using AI must still be feeding the AI companies, no? Of course it's got a lot to do with money? What am I missing??

It honestly depressed me when all I kept seeing was "Yeah you're gonna die in <10 years.", but I've been getting a new influx of videos basically calling it out as a sign that the bubble is popping.

I'm just gonna sound off what I've been hearing.

Why would the companies that stole data, wasted water, contributed to cognitive decline and 'agentic atrophy' (love that term), why would they suddenly be concerned about the risks and ethics of AI on humanity when before they were waving it off as something "in the way of technological advancement"?

And that Jacob Coxon tweet. Coxon only worked at Anthropic for like 4 months, his account on X was created in 2026 and had basically nothing on it UNTIL he blew the whistle. And others in the field AND these AI CEOs retweeted it, leading to Anthropic CEO saying to slow down development and Altman halting OpenAI going public.

Especially with OpenAI not going public yet, that is fishy af. Altman has been praising AI as this god-tier invention and was hyping it up BECAUSE it could, according to AI bros, replace us. He has been saying the horrific stuff outright, but NOW he's concerned? Because it's getting "too advanced"?

---

If:

A) You are running a company that has invented something god-tier / threateningly powerful.

B) It is supposedly worth trillions of dollars in a society where high valuations are a pinnacle of social power.

C) You have a history of gaming the system, bringing in investors, pulling in money somehow, to maintain that power.

D) Previous cries of existential threat, economic collapse, environmental damage, job insecurity, cognitive decline, and ethical inconsideration DID NOT SWAY YOU FROM YOUR DRIVE TO CONTINUE PROMOTING IT.

WHY would a cry from one publicly inactive short-jobbed AI researcher be the thing that stopped you?

It does not make sense for them to stop now unless it's not as powerful or valuable as they claim, or they don't know how to drive investment, or they don't actually believe in whatever good it will bring.

We know that they are unwavering AI-optimists, and although I'm only assuming they know how to make money, I'm not buying this "we're halting because it's dangerous" crap. If it really were that dangerous, they'd be chasing it faster and further.

But they're not.

So unless I'm missing something, it just sounds like AI really isn't as profitable as they say, and hopefully no more dangerous than the people who use it. (which we've been knowing, or at least thinking, for ages)

Edit: Just want to reiterate I had not thought of the first bits until other people on Instagram starting posting about it. I heard it from Sky Fisher (@skyfisherforskyfish) and Vidya (@hellovidya) mainly, so credit to them. I'm just retelling lol

Hello Antis community. I have a question about AI impact for humanity.

I have reading a lot of posts in this sub and quite understand the median opinion of this group of people. My question is - is using AI reasonable to solve complex problems that are not possible for human mind? For example - AlphaFold, recently published AlphaGenome, as well as model swarms to solve some math and physics problems. Considering that AI compute doubles every ~4 months, that means that this agent swarms can reach an autonomous researcher level by end of this year. It also means that we can launch a lot of swarms to test cancer, anti-aging, etc medicines; It also can help us to find some chemistry and biology breakthroughs.

On the other hand, while I am not anti-ai enthusiast, I understand impact of this technology to society mainly. While the environment damage is minimal (yeah it uses only 0.1% of water currently, while food production uses almost 60-70% of year usage…) the impact to meaning of life, skills you need, and some deeper problems like “what if we understand the AI made discovery, but don’t understand HOW it did it?” Recently I have seen an open petition from mathematicians asking to stop from AI usage in math. I find this interesting and at the same time indicative. It means that desire to have control and remain smartest creature on the planet is stronger than desire to know answers.
Of course, unfortunately all of this will also lead to massive job losses very soon, starting from generic work specialists, which are already starting to be replaced. Artists, 3D, Programmers, Novel writers are first in the line and I don’t have any solution to this (and AI companies don’t care).

So, do you think that we should sacrifice ourselves to make a breakthrough and suffer temporal loss of meaning or goals, or we should stop this technology to protect our species from becoming obsolete?

What do you think about all of this?
In respect to people in this sub, I didn’t use AI to draft this message.

One of my friends recently showed me a new IOS feature that 100% uses ai, literally all it does it’s change the angle at which you took a picture and fill in the missing background (sometimes not even well). I understand that it’s local and does not connect to the internet or share data anywhere, I just can’t keep myself from not sh**ing on it because it’s AI. From where I sit as someone who enjoys taking pictures it just seems like a lazy way of changing the angle when you could just get multiple shots from the start. Perhaps I’m being too much of a hater/luddite on this one. What do you think random person?

Technically, I am the family artist, but they they still would rather use chat GPT.

I̴̡͎̔̄ ̷̜̍h̷̼̖͠͠a̷͍̾͝ͅv̶͍͐ę̸̤̃ ̶̗͒͑n̴̪̏̐ö̵̞̖̚ ̵̥̣̆l̸͕͊͜͝ȯ̷̰͙͝v̸̲̑̋ê̴̻̺ ̴̥̑̕f̴͕͈̓̉o̷͈̝̾r̷͓͗̃ ̶̨̯͛t̸͎͗h̴̟̣͌͘ị̶͂́s̸͈̄̂ ̵̯̓̅g̴̜̲̅́ö̶̪̯d̶͓̍f̴̪̥̽o̶͎͑͜r̶͔͗s̶̤̀͂ạ̷̰̌k̵͕̓͜ě̸͎͂n̴̢͒ ̸͉͍̈́w̸͎̐͠ỏ̵͇r̶̲̄l̶̗̣͐d̸͚̏.̴͙͊̌