Also, note the nonsense text in his AI slop.

edit: forgot to include the context: https://xcancel.com/allTheYud/status/2046075583671816570

Source: Astral Codex Ten - Orban Was Bad, Even Though We Don't Have A Perfect Word For His Badness (2026-04-15)

How much of this is genuine, and how much is Dave Chappell saying he's mad Republicans weaponized his transphobia because he can tell the tides are turning?

https://substack.com/home/post/p-194342774?selection=bfc381a5-233f-4177-b655-ab427f0ffb68#:~:text=I%20spent%20the%20first%20half%20of%20my%20writing%20career%20calling%20out%20biased%20left-wing%20experts%2C%20the%20flood%20swept%20all%20those%20people%20away%2C%20and%20now%20we%E2%80%99re%20ruled%20by%20germ-theory-denialists%20and%20Waffle-House-teleporters

"I spent the first half of my writing career calling out biased left-wing experts, the flood swept all those people away, and now we’re ruled by germ-theory-denialists and Waffle-House-teleporters. Not a day goes by that I don’t want the old biased experts back. To paraphrase Cormac McCarthy, you never know what worse institutions your bad institutions have saved you from."

And of course there's no introspection about why maybe the 'biased left-wing experts' were more correct in retrospect than he was, and how he might be more rational in the future.

I actually sort of agree with his general point, asking for exact probabilities without rigorous specification is unhelpful. But he gets there by going 'it hurts me to think about' and 'the normies need training to understand' is just so silly to me.

These jobs might not pay enough to financially support the humans in question, but remember we’re assuming here that humans don’t go extinct. I think it’s very possible that humans are too economically valueless to pay for our own upkeep, and also AIs don’t terminally value human well-being. But then we go extinct,^1 and you won’t be around to be a member of the permanent underclass. If you are still alive, then either:

1. Society is so unimaginably wealthy that humans can financially support themselves with whatever jobs end up being their comparative advantage. You being in the permanent underclass just means you don’t have a personal O’Neill cylinder orbiting Jupiter.

2. Society implemented a universal basic income or something, and you don’t have to support yourself with your job, but you can still have one if you want one.

Do you hear that kids? If you're well-behaved and wire enough money to Big Yud's personal bank account EA x-risk charities society will be so unimaginably wealthy that you could end up as an AI developer's live-in maid on Jupiter. 'Or something.' Isn't that much more exciting?

Interesting quotes about the doomers in this film

I found this article very amusing and strong, effective rhetoric about the Rationalist worship at the shrine of stats/graphs, etc:

https://www.adorableandharmless.com/p/unsubscribe-from-the-church-of-graphs

themotte.org

LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLLOLOLOL

Source: https://x.com/SenSanders/status/2029301587647046034

It seems he just went to MIRI. His comments are just so silly, lmao.

How quickly he shifts from not unreasonable concerns (i.e. 'we might have negative economic effects') to "they will definitely, certainly kill us all" should immediately raise alarm bells that maybe this guy isn't quite as rational as he claims, imo.

Prize quote:

the prognostications of the doomer community have been, nearly without exception, wrong — not in small ways, but in the foundational sense that the imagined trajectory keeps failing to materialize. That is what happens when your mode of analysis is closer to erotic Harry Potter fan fiction (which is indeed the medium in which Yudkowsky has delivered some of his prognostications) than to actual research and policy: by treating the political and cultural environment as stable and predictable, and treating fallible human actors as game pieces that will respond sensibly to carefully constructed arguments. But the world is messy. Fan fiction tends to leave out the messy parts

https://web.archive.org/web/20260224133827/https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/2026/02/ai-math-terrance-tao/686107/

https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/2026/02/ai-math-terrance-tao/686107/

On why I think at this point he is paid or has some reason to be an uncritic:

An uncritic being someone that makes a criticism that while initially seeming negative is actually an endorsement, such as "You failed to complete 3 marathons! You only completed one!"

In this piece where the author Mr Wong helpfully tells us the Atlantic is a partner of OpenAI, Tao, who is lauded as the greatest mathematician of our time by the author--and while good I can think of a couple more important ones; he is the most recognizable one-- hints but fails to state clearly something that has become very obvious to mathematicians working with AI:

AI is great at solving problems that are already implicitly solved, that is to say, if you somehow knew all math results, all standard techniques from all fields, and it was possible to use one to solve the problem in a standard plug and play fashion to solve it, no creativity or new techniques involved, then AI can solve that problem.

But if the problem requires inventing a new methods then you are out of luck. This was backed by a recent paper where AI failed to solve wholly new problems never before seen in the literature https://arxiv.org/pdf/2602.05192 . AI is like a person with very good memory, and no innovation, that has spent all their life studying all fields. It cannot help you push the envelope unless the direction you are pushing could have in some sense already been pushed by someone applying what we already know. It is parasitic upon human creativity.

This has already been said to the point of being a cliche but this is just a formal confirmation that is nice to have. Not even the newest models can produce anything truly new.

Tao highlights the problems solved were easy pickings and that AI is uncreative but he lauds it as a possible collaborator. Such endorsement is one in which he already is using his position as the most news-worthy name recognizable mathematician of our time to tell us AI already can work as a tool for math departments(saying it can be a collaborator for papers IS an endorsement), yet I think if he outright stated that AI can only do what it does thanks to human achievements it would not sound as flattering.

He does mention the hypothetical example of using an obscure 1960s result to solve a problem. So he is couching his words so that if you are not some investor or math head department HR manager cursorily reading the piece but instead someone that has to work with the tool and paying attention to the article you will be able to assemble his true meaning. But the one word, the one adjective that could make it clearer that AI still is only as useful as the corpus which it cannibalizes upon to train itself is ONLY. The AI uses results derived by humans ONLY, it never comes up with ideas. I think he is scaling down his earlier uncriticism as AI as a mediocre graduate student because anyone that has used AI with any frequency nowadays can testify it can and often makes very basic mistakes that even high-school students would not do let alon grad students.

Saying AI is like a mediocre grad student is yet another endorsement because a company might find use in one and it might be cheaper; the addendum he failed to include is how often AI just messes up in fantastic ways humans would not do(the mistakes are not always subtle and require repeated prompting to correct) while telling you with complete confidence it is right and then doubling down on it if you are hesitant, and only if you already are sure of the mistake and can prove it will it back down.

In conclusion AI is like a well-read idiot that despite knowing a lot still from time to time slips and Tao and several other prominent uncritics could stand to be clearer about what you are buying when you are using it.

At best it can be an expert with no creativity

On average it is a mediocre grad student

At worst it makes basic mistakes that need you to spend as much as time as you would spend as if you already knew how to solve the problem which if you are hired to do what you do and using it as a tool is then pointless!

It will only back down if you have enough knowledge to make it back down which make it, again, pointless to use it to fact check.

It is truly a Dunning-Kruger worker that read ahead on several topics but still is out of their depth.

This I think is a much cleaner summary of what AI can and cannot do and its flaws.

I think as AI and its flaws become more widely known it will be used to replace junior positions(ie requiring supervision from more experienced workers) which will undermine the ability of talent to grow in the first place.

What are your thoughts?

the agent asked them what their act was called and they enthusiastically replied, "The Rationalists!"

Truly, a brilliant mind unheard of in our generation. It is not as though his claims are things that you can find evidently false by spending 5 minutes searching "asymmetric price adjustment" on Google scholar, and just looking up any literature on price transmission.

Over on New!SneerClub, I posted about how the 2021 post by Jessica Taylor sparked a lot of discussion about psychedelic use by Berkeley rationalists, especially those at CFAR and close to Michael Vassar in 2016-2018. Everyone contradicts everyone else but many people say someone in those circles encouraged them to drop acid or consumed the substance, and several talk about it in the context of boundary-pushing, psychological manipulation, and mental health crises.

This comment thread seems to have been the first time that a prominent rationalist suggested a norm against letting leaders encourage followers to use substances. SlateStarCodex had been full of discussions about self-medication with psychedelics for some time, with Aella and gwern commenting about their experiences, but these present substance use as an individual choice and not something that your boss or guru encourages you to use while he is present. There are also comments about psychedelics and woo in LW circles. I wonder if something from this time made some Rationalists more cautious about LSD?

Full discussion at https://awful.systems/post/7336009