howunfortunate

> They create hype, they get money, that's not an assumption, that's an observation.

Because we can't observe the counterfactual world, this actually is just an assumption.

Diving their intention also still requires many assumptions about their intermediate beliefs that I find dubious

I think part of this comes from the fact that LLMs are surprisingly good at logic but roughly about as good as expected on information accuracy.

LLMs are not convincing to me in the domain I did grad school...but neither is Wikipedia, or Reddit, or random pop sci books. And LLMs are basically just summarizing those things.

But when made to work through difficult arbitrary logic (like coding), they are very impressive.

I think this also explains why people gripe a lot about LLM coding _style_, but concede that LLMs do totally fine on coding _correctness_ in 2026

Saying "I'm terrified of my job" does not normally lead fo getting paid more. Those links are the extra assumptions.

> continue being paid

What I mean by Occam's Razor:

There are many assumptions that need to be true to link "they say they're terrified of AI" to "they get paid more / longer", in both their own minds and everyone else's. It's a bit of 4D chess that could go their way, but also could go 100 different ways.

In contrast, linking "they say it" to "they believe it" is simple.

People will say it's marketing but I find Occam's Razor highly favors the theory "they are true believers in AGI/ASI"

This seems especially true for Anthropic employees.

Who is "they"?

I care about social media bans.

I think personal responsibility does play into these situations to some extent, but even so, that doesn't imply there should be zero regulation.

Both for crack addicts and teens using social media, they not only hurt themselves, but also hurt those around them.

The studies on teen mental health largely suggest that mostly it's not about using a lot of social media yourself, but living in an area where social media is the coin of the realm. It's the toxic culture SM generates rather than direct use that's hurting teen mental health.

I think what 'we' prefer is the bad team's posts being censored, but none of our team's stuff getting censored.

But what we prefer and what's good for us are two drastically different things.

I get it, but I think you need a new analogy.

Because the car case just has too much empirical evidence that safety features are the way to go for cars. We used to have the equivalent of "spikes" and people still drove a lot, and died, at way higher rates.

https://assets.weforum.org/editor/Tmf51HF4UDnSDHD4RxS75s1_5m...

> A publisher making editorial decisions is not censorship. You have no right to compel other people to publish your speech. If you don't like Twitter's editorial policies, you are free to go elsewhere

When a social media deletes users posts because they cross a political line, it may not be government censorship, but it's very obviously still censorship.

It's very hard to take opinions like yours seriously because I know exactly how you'd react if all your HN posts were deleted because you're calling people "Nazis"

It doesn't add up for me. If the goal is simply authoritarian control, why would they employ less censorship than their predecessors?

Surely they could get away with at the very least the same amount?

Are there NYPost articles you feel people should be prevented from DMing? Or posting, for that matter?

I'm curious what trends you see towards censorship?

Elon presumably being an exemplar for current trends: Twitter is unarguably far less censored than it was before (though censorship is still present). And Meta took note and also turned down its censorship significantly in response.

The Epstein files, while far less than hoped for by many, are another example of a trend towards sharing far more sensitive info than has been typical by past administrations.

There are many good examples you could point to of increased authoritarianism, but censorship in particular seems to be on the backswing, if anything.

Edit: oof, it's extremely concerning that the comment below was flagged

My comment above does not rely on the premise that all moderation is censorship. Only that some Reddit mods engage in censorship.

Depends on the platform. On Reddit, definitely yes, as almost all censorship is "deletion style" where the target post or comment is initially visible until the mods suppress it.

But your point is well taken, it's definitely more challenging and expensive than what's being done here.

Hmm.

I'd wager the vast majority of internet censorship is within platform, like that done by Reddit mods.

The most egregious example I've seen in my lifetime was when old Twitter decided to censor a NYPost article, down to blocking sharing in DMs.

It seems that type of example is entirely missed here. Is there any attempt to capture that signal?

This one is a great example of how a Republic can avoid the worst excesses of direct Democracy

A direct democracy might have just banned all futures.

This seems like a good way to get hammered by tons of extra requests because agents can't efficiently figure out your site...

This is very helpful!

Basically what I take away is that we're inventing a new number system from scratch. So we're not "proving" that 1 is a number between 0 and the empty set. We're defining it as such, and it just so happens that a number system defined this way works out in convergent ways with other mathematics.

Is that roughly right?

This would make a lot more sense to me if "nothing" and "nothing" were instead "-inf" and "+inf"

Some other comments clarify that "nothing" is more accurately "the empty set". This is helpful because at first I wrongly synonomized "nothing" with zero. But now I get tripped up on the "between" language. Maybe it's a lack of background in sets, but I don't know what "between" implies for an integer (zero) and a set (the empty set).

Pitch: a mini-series where a Dumb and Dumber duo get access to unlimited tokens via a roommates's account (who is an intern at a frontier lab).

In each episode they make a major science-fiction style breakthrough and grapple with the consequences without revealing themselves.

> On the second day, there are two gaps: “between nothing and zero” and “between zero and nothing”. Two numbers spawn in those two gaps. Call them –1 and 1.

Got lost here. I think I'm officially too dumb for math.

You're misreading me. Regulation helps boost Apple and Google at the expense of anyone trying to compete with them on app stores.

The push to involve the legal system and the government is ironic.

It's partly lawsuits that are pushing Google to do this in the first place - because people download shady apps and get scammed or hacked.

The more regulation we get, the more it's going to push towards central app stores that are inaccessible to small devs.

Yes, if my game made enough money I would definitely consider upgrading to human-produced assets.

I'm a very long way from that though.

Insurance companies / actuaries are like the original prediction markets.

It's amazing how much better info you can get by forcing people to put their money where their mouth is.

Do you mean Pascal's wager? Yes, that's a very appropriate and useful comparison here.

My sense is that it's context dependent. If you've got VC backing (or could soon) and are making deals in SF, the generosity path makes a lot of sense. Limited downside, infinite upside. You can afford generosity.

If you're starting with $2000 and bootstrapping a textiles business out of Kolkata, it's a terrible idea, you're likely going to immediately get burned and never recover.

(take with a grain of salt as I have no experience, just stating my observations)

Interesting, I did not know this.

Is Greg Brockman right wing?