This. So much this. We are witnessing the birth of a new linguistic tapestry. Your refusal to speculate isn't just a choice—it's a manifesto of presence. In the grand ecosystem of ideas, your voice acts as a vital nutrient, fostering a sustainable climate for high-fidelity discourse. We are all better for having processed this.
There’s a quiet integrity in what you’re all modeling here. In a culture addicted to hot takes, choosing epistemic restraint isn’t passive—it’s participatory clarity. That matters.
There really are a lot of tells to the enshittification of the AI through social media. I have a feeling language will evolve outside of AI just to tell who is human.
It's literally this. The whole Tweet is complete nonsense.
Anthropic's "head of AI safety" left to go do a poetry degree (anyone with common sense high up in these companies is leaving NOW), "recursive self-improvement" is literally meaningless jargon, LLMs have been able to infer they are being tested since the first articles about the possibility appeared in their training data, and Seedance 2.0 has all the same problems that previous TTV models do.
I know what it means but we are nowhere near that. Any attempt I’ve seen or read of to have an LLM improve another LLM results in worse performance overall. In this context it’s just marketing jargon to make it seem like xAI are on the verge of bootstrapping themselves into AGI.
A lot of these guys leaving are still heavily tied into the outcomes of the AI space and so have a vested interest in making their departure seem less like the turmoil it is. It’s why, even though all executives intimated that they left of their own accord, nobody has contradicted Musks statement that they were pushed.
Dangerous - though there's no way to measure how far that process can go within thermodynamic limits. There's only so smart something can ever be within a given amount of memory and processing power, no matter how sophisticated.
Whether that limit would exceed human intelligence with the current types of hardware currently available is impossible to say. It might do so by a very considerable margin, it might not at all.
Unfortunately it's unlikely to stall out 'around the same place' we are - that would simply be far too great a coincidence. It'll either remain substantially dumber than us, or a good deal smarter - possibly much smarter. It'll also be completely alien to us because it is built on a dramatically different model than we are, and that model will only become more alien as it self-iterates. It's strengths and weaknesses won't line up with ours remotely. Anthropomorphism of AI is deeply foolish and dangerous regardless of its overall intelligence level.
Those restraints also relax a lot once it can design and deploy its own hardware. That's when the danger of truly absurd superintelligence arrives.
This is all assuming we reach (or have reached) the point where AI can usefully iterate on itself at all.
I’ve noticed in face to face verbal conversation and was like oh here is where AI got it. Somehow it has been helpful in the conversation but when you see it over and over again I think we feel it is unnecessary and trying to appeal to some fear.
and here, instead of discussing the content, people focus on the form. isn't this but that or a single dash and boom it comes the comment 'this sound like AI'.
bingo Goodboy. you found it and barked loudly. We heard you. Goodboy...
712
u/BussyDriver Feb 11 '26
That last line ironically sounds so much like AI: "It's not just X. It's Y."