root_axis

There is no censorship happening here - the comment remains visible, he simply asked them to refrain from the inflammatory language.

Research shows that even the raw trace tokens do not actually reflect underlying model "thoughts".

Imagine taking 6 months longer to release your cookie cutter CRUD app.

> Polymarket gives 32% chance the ban on Fable is lifted this month.

Totally meaningless.

What age do you recommend and why?

> I'd rather my child wait until their immune system is more developed

At what age is the immune system fully developed?

Sure.

https://www.theregister.com/software/2026/02/13/anthropics-a...

https://pivot-to-ai.com/2026/01/27/cursor-lies-about-vibe-co...

We've repeatedly seen that these test-driven LLM rewrites consistently produce absolute garbage.

Every faction claims they support free speech and every faction also supports suppression of certain types of speech.

And they've had some initial success with TPUs which could be a major differentiator in the future.

He is wrong by every conceivable measure. Not only was his timing wrong, where he specifically noted 10 years as the absolute maximum worst case scenario, but the trend has been accelerating in completely the opposite direction.

To his credit, he actually made a falsifiable prediction, unlike most folks that rely on infinite timelines so they never have to be accountable for their prognostications.

This just underscores the point. Despite the advancement of "AI medical devices", the labor market numbers for radiology show Hinton was spectacularly incorrect.

If we had followed his advice we would be experiencing a major crisis in medicine today.

Yes, Hinton's prediction was inaccurate.

And yet, here we are in a thread full of them.

> Being a process doesn't preclude something from being an entity

In a tortured semantics sense sure, but in a practical sense they refer to different types of things.

Hinton also said we should stop training radiologists 10 years ago because it would be solved by AI.

It has no body, metabolism or reproductive capability. It's a process, not an entity.

How is Bezos not rational?

> A distinction without a difference

That's absurd. The distinction is at the heart of the entire discussion.

It's fine if you want to discuss the disruptive effects of LLMs in the hands of the masses, but that's not what anyone means when they say "out-of-control" in the context of the ASI meme

They've never gone out of control. All those headlines are cases where humans deliberately relinquished control.

People are working on lots of things all the time, so far, nothing has approached the efficacy of the transformer architecture.

LLMs didn't emerge by chance, they are the culmination of decades of research intersecting with brute force engineering rigor in a perfect storm of innovation. You're not just going to stumble into an alternative approach by dumping loads of cash into research.

> Both OpenAI and Anthropic were founded by people who sincerely believed in the risk of out-of-control superintelligence.

They don't. LLMs can never become out-of-control superintelligence and everyone working on LLMs knows this (with a few eccentric exceptions).

An hour out of every work day doesn't seem low to me.

These types of pages have been common long before vibe coding.

Not that surprising. Reining in regulators is one of the main pillars of the party in power.

Kafka pastiche.

It's the inevitable end game. If the models ever become practically useful in a closed loop, there's no other choice except to keep the model private and use it to compete directly with their current enterprise customers.

> 10 engineers can make a billion dollar company

Not really. It's possible they could, but in practice they cannot. Creating a billion dollar company requires a good idea, good timing, and a lot of luck, the engineers are the least important part.

I just can't stand this type of fawning language.

Interesting that Anthropic doesn't feel that leasing an illegally powered data center is a risk to their business operations or brand.

I think the points you raise are reasonable signals to consider, but I don't think they show the author being "consistently wrong". The overall thesis still remains plausible even though we have seen LLMs continue to improve.

> - hallucinations are dramatically less of a problem

Sure, but it remains a big enough problem that human intervention and review is still necessary for any serious work across all use cases and industries.

> - several mass market use cases have emerged, most notably coding

Coding seems to be the only one, but there are still a lot of open questions about how the market can sustain the costs, and that's without considering the market dynamics that could emerge once costs are lowered enough that open source models start to become an attractive option.

> - rate of progress has increased

Debatable.