MP_1729

It's Adam Back.

Jason Calacanis (famous venture capitalist, podcaster, early investor into Uber) said in the last all-in that there were humans doing stuff for you in the Instinct.

I also thought all the permissions I had to give it were scary, given how big of a single point of failure it'd be.

Can you share whether it's possible for your customer to have automated indians doing jobs as part of their implementations of the VM?

I deleted my Instinct after one day of productive work and I hope they finished my data.

> However, we are less confident in this assessment than we were in prior risk reports, since our most concrete task-based evaluations have “saturated”—i.e., no longer capture increases in models’ capabilities—and because we are seeing early signs of acceleration.

I totally understand this is a subset of alignment-related evals, but if Anthropic of all is running out of evals, doesn't that also means we are running out of things to scale?

I mean. I totally believe they have a model that is better at Kernel Optimization, creating new matrix multiplication algos, than Mythos. But it's clearly no generalizing, rightw

What am I missing?

Next week, it's my turn to create an UI for financial modeling prep API

The Protocol is from the Linux Foundation

wtf? Why didn't Simon use MCP Inspector? https://modelcontextprotocol.io/docs/2026-07-28/tools/inspec...

I feel like 5% of people who develop MCP Servers for a living and 10% of the people who develop MCP Clients for a living use the MCP Inspector and understand the Protocol.

This is Eliezer Yudkowskyto to blame LMAO, alongside with all the EAs extremists that shifted the Overton Window to think that images can be unsafe.

Because tradition is incredibly important.

Really funny people complaining about classical chess, I don't know which games they have been watching.

Nepo Magnus game 6, Nepo Ding many many games, Nepo Caruana draw on round 14 of candidates. ALL OF THEM WERE TERRIFIC GAMES.

I don't understand what people mean by stagnation

I'm in a low-cost country, haha! So the intern is even cheaper.

25 prompts is the daily limit on o1-preview. And I wrote that script in just one day.

My 3rd day intern still couldn't do a script o1-preview could do in less than 25 prompts.

OBVIOUSLY a smart OAI employee wouldn't want the public to think they are already replacing high-level humans.

And OBVIOUSLY OAI senior management will want to try to convince AI engineers that might have 2nd-guessings about their work that they aren't developing a replacement for human beings.

But they are.

That's not how pricing works.

If o1-pro is 10% better than Claude, but you are a guy who makes $300,000 per year, but now can make $330,000 because o1-pro makes you more productive, then it makes sense to give Sam $2,400.

My new internet is in his 3rd day in the job and he's still behind o1-preview with less than 25 prompts.

Good. Effective Austruism is trying to destroy democratic institutions and it's likely a bigger threat to society than fascism. The pro-progress people needs to organize themselves to stop types like SBF from giving AI to China.

Satya Nadella's Microsoft is such a weird company. It's like there's one side of it that is running with Zuckerberg's "move fast and break things" and the other side is saying "wait, we're the most important software company in the world! Things can't break!"

“You want to know how to paint a perfect painting? It's easy. Make yourself perfect and then just paint naturally.” - Robert M. Pirsig

The Musk reasoning here is stupid, but smart. If he makes a superhuman intelligence, he can only ask it "What is dark matter?" and it might figure out.

I have some big problems with this idea, but it isn't 100% stupid. Just 98% stupid.

It's more like: don't invest $100B in capital when there's still orders of magnitude improvements in software to be made.

Ask stuff like "Check whether there's some correlation between the major economies fiscal primary deficit and GDP growth in the post-pandemic era" and get an answer.

Obviously, I know these timetables.

But there's a light and day difference post-Nov22 than before. Both in the AI race it sparkled, but also in the funding all AI labs have.

If you're expecting GPT-5 by 2026, that's ok. Just very weird to me.

Nope, I'm not

Was there ever a time when betting that computer scientists would not make better algorithms was a good idea?

I'm curious now. Can you give color on what you're doing that you keep hitting boundaries? I suppose it isn't limited by human-attention.

they literally launched TODAY a GPT-4 model!

Two pushbacks.

1- The mania only started post Nov 22. And the huge investments since then didn't meant substantial progress since GPT-4 launch in March 22. 2- We are running out of high quality tokens in 2024. (per Epoch AI)

I am sure that people at OpenAI, particularly former YC CEO Sam Altman, will be fine, even if they read the bad stuff MP_1729 says around here.

All of them, without exception. Just recently, Sprint sold their fiber business for $1 lmfao. Or WorldCom. Or NetRail, Allied Riser, PSINet, FNSI, Firstmark, Carrier 1, UFO Group, Global Access, Aleron Broadband, Verio...

All fiber went bust because despite internet's huge increase in traffic, the amount of packets per fiber increased a handful of magnitudes.

That's the opposite of what I am saying.

What I am saying is that computers are SO GOOD that AI is getting VERY CHEAP and the amount of computing capex being done is excessive.

It's more like you are in 1999, people are spending $100B in fiber, while a lot of computer scientists are working in compression, multiplexing, etc.

I am just talking about scaling laws and the level of capex that big tech companies are doing. One hundred billion dollars are being invested this year to pursue AI scaling laws.

You can be excited, as I am, while also being bearish, as I am.

I read Simon Sigh during high schools and that was such a beautiful story of perseveration that I decided to do Math.