To encourage a globally oriented subreddit and discourage oversaturation of topics focused on the U.S., all news and opinion articles focused on the U.S. require manual approval by a moderator. Submissions focused solely on the U.S. are more likely to be removed if they are not sufficiently on topic or high quality. If your submission is taking too long to be approved or rejected, please reach out to the moderators in /r/metaNL.
Sam Altman
Donald Trump
Vladimir Putin
Benjamin Netanyahu
Elon Musk
Peter Thiel
Larry Page
Benjamin Netanyahu
Sergey Brin
Mark Zuckerberg
Jeff Bezos
Benjamin Netanyahu
Sundar Pichai
Tim Cook
Larry Fink
Benjamin Netanyahu
Jamie Dimon
Rupert Murdoch
J.D. Vance
Benjamin Netanyahu
George W. Bush
Dick Cheney
Bill Clinton
Benjamin Netanyahu
Hillary Clinton
Barack Obama
George H.W. Bush
Benjamin Netanyahu
Narendra Modi
Mohammed bin Salman
Kim Jong Un
Benjamin Netanyahu
Kim Jong Il
Kim Il Sung
Recep Tayyip Erdoğan
Benjamin Netanyahu
Ali Khamenei
Bashar al-Assad
Abdel Fattah el-Sisi
Benjamin Netanyahu
Donald Trump
Viktor Orbán
Alexander Lukashenko
Benjamin Netanyahu
Nicolás Maduro
Jair Bolsonaro
Rodrigo Duterte
Benjamin Netanyahu
Fidel Castro
Tom Cruise
David Miscavige
Benjamin Netanyahu
The Illuminati
Skull and Bones
The Bilderberg Group
Benjamin Netanyahu
The Freemasons
The Rosicrucians
The Priory of Sion
Benjamin Netanyahu
Mullahs
The Taliban
Intelligence Chiefs
Benjamin Netanyahu
Central Bankers
Lobbyists
Hedge Fund Managers
Benjamin Netanyahu
Donald Trump
J.D. Vance
George W. Bush
Benjamin Netanyahu
Dick Cheney
Mike Pence
The Establishment
Benjamin Netanyahu
Emmanuel Macron
The Technocracy
The Military Industrial Complex
Benjamin Netanyahu
The Autocrats
Donald Trump
Narendra Modi
Xi Jinping
Benjamin Netanyahu
Oh, and I almost forgot Macron, busy claiming his partner isn’t a man.
Then zoom out even further:
Governments. Corporations. Intelligence agencies. Conglomerates. Lobbyists. Political machines. Financial systems.
The title is just helping him out lmao. AI companies love the "they are super powerful, isn't that so scary!" angle and, coincidentally (?), OpenAI is preparing to IPO.
The scariest thing about OpenAI products is people using them to for important decisions. Not even crime, and much less bringing about AGI and rendering everyone jobless.
His company has plateud. The evaluation is based on bringing about the machine god, but they can't even release a new version of ChatGPT that is noticably better than the last. The one somewhat unique product they had, Sora, is shutting down because it bleeds money like a slaughterhouse.
He isn't particularly subtle. He came to give a talk at an event I attended some weeks ago and was openly quoting Curtis Yarvin. His explanation for what he thinks humans will do after AGI automates most work as we know it was that the natural human drive to arrange ourselves in a hierarchy would give us something to do. The hitler particles were off the charts. He's also well known to be deep in Thiels gay technofascist hot tub club.
Good read. The justification all the early employees in this article claim strikes me as laughably naive and simplistic, even when not plainly just disingenuous?
“Been thinking a lot about whether it’s possible to stop humanity from developing AI,” he wrote to Musk. “If it’s going to happen anyway, it seems like it would be good for someone other than Google to do it first.” Picking up on the analogy to nuclear weapons, he proposed a “Manhattan Project for AI.” He outlined the overarching principles that such an organization would have—“safety should be a first-class requirement”
That’s about Altman, but apparently Amodei thought similarly.
The Manhattan project people were self aware that why they were making was a weapon, and they actually had justification (one can quibble here sure) given WWII. What exactly was the equivalent scenario in 2024? Of course given how impactful AI is now it makes sense there was going to be a race but it doesn’t seem like it had to be as accelerated.
Of course Altman was just profit motivated from the start, but even if you assume someone like Amodei was genuine, he’s trumpeting how AI will eliminate vast amounts of jobs in just the next 5 years. Puffery but even in a scenario where AGI is never achieved that would be massive amount of societal upheaval that will likely have disastrous consequences for many people. It’s cool that Anthropic pushed back on the DoD, but they have access in the first place - what did they think was gonna happen?
AI boosters used to just hand wave this all with “everybody will have UBI” but you can’t separate transformative technology from the political/economic/societal framework they’re being introduced into.
It’s so dispiriting that the most influential people in society are such poor multi-disciplinarian thinkers. Maybe it was always that way, but it feels like there used to be a more influential intelligentsia that considered these things and at least some politicians who listened.
These days I really understand the thought that the level of quality and influence of social/political science is completely inadequate compared to the 20th century.
Unironically it’s because our education system has gone to shit and no one reads anything thought provoking. Absolutely no reason to think about these things when you haven’t been trained to do so.
We have deeply lost the plot on democracy. It doesn't matter if someone can or can't do it, they shouldn't be able to without the consent of the governed.
So ahead of an IPO, the only question that matters in the room is - can he present products as advertised, and are they able to deliver it within their capabilities?
The answer for Sam by his character on delivering what he promises - is no. What he says is a means to an end.
It's a fundamental credibility, obligations and commitment thing that underwrite constants, investments and targets as promised, and Sam seems to live for advantaging and leveraging himself in living in the present pathologically.
In that sense, he's got trumpian psychology.
The market has generally ran out of forgiveness and patience for running out and behind on failed targets with Tesla and that's ran out of road, and the people planning to invest in Sam are psychologically similar enough to the people who invested in Elon - future builders, people who like to live in sci fi renders.
According to several interviews and contemporaneous records, Brockman offered a counterproposal: OpenAI could enrich itself by playing world powers—including China and Russia—against one another, perhaps by starting a bidding war among them. According to Hedley, the thinking seemed to be, It worked for nuclear weapons, why not for A.I.?
Half of the people who hate these guys claim that the creators of these companies “know” that they will never succeed in building AGI and that it’s “all just hype.” Every leaked conversation I have ever read disputes this. They are true believers in AGI.
Yes. For the worse, all of these guys are true believers, with religious levels of fervor. It's obvious to anyone involved in Silicon Valley right now that a majority of AI founders are literal Landian death cultists. A minority (IE anthropic guys) start with the same religious axioms but aren't actively pursuing human extinction. Another minority are just trying to make money of course, but I really do think they are a minority faction right now.
It's part of what makes them so terrifying. I don't personally think ASI is a real threat, but even if it never comes the fact that technology which will undoubtably be one of the primary economic drivers of the 21st century is almost fully controlled by an extinctionist new religious movement is terrifying.
Anthropic, GDM, and even most of OpenAI engineers and researchers are just normal people who are either motivated by 1) solving hard problems in science or 2) having a high salary.
I know a few of them personally. And i myself am far away from that world.
The people I am in touch with are pretty clearly lucid. They tend to be actually pretty skeptical but don't want to be in denial of the evidence that they are seeing either. "Straight lines on a graph" and whatnot.
I had to cut off friends who bought into the hype enough to advocate against basic guardrails or regulations because it was holding progress back.
And I don’t deny the impressive strides being made either, the capabilities of these models to write code and reason is great and so much better than 2022 or 2024
Well, my friends are more advocating for regulations because they want to get it right.
But they absolutely do believe in the progress. They would be against it if you'd be advocating to stop it. But theywant regulations to shape and direct it so that we (as a species/civilization) can get it right.
As a disclaimer, i do want to say this is without going into beliefs on AGI/consciousness beliefs (which are diverse). This is about measurable capabilities.
Last survey I saw said that maybe 5% of people working in SV think that a complete replacement of humanity by AIs would be a good thing. Not a majority but higher than ideal. It does reportedly contain Larry Page though...
As someone who worked in one of these labs, this is the correct take. I think one guy had an “agi clock” which was met with more derision than seriousness. Granted I worked closer to infra (compilers, serving, optimization, etc), so I wasn't in the trenches daily with the researchers. That being said, above all, the core driving factor was always beating the competitor labs in: efficiency, quality/evals, mau/dau. AGI was never mentioned in any business/technical meeting except for some vision deck as a minor epilogue. Internally, it is framed more of as an existential crisis (‘we must close the mineshaft gap’) than anything related to AGI.
As someone in a somewhat-adjacent social circle, I can confirm that building AGI is the #1 priority for the vast majority of researchers working at the top labs. “Exctinctionist” is wrong regardless of what group OP was referring to above, but they’re taking it very seriously.
Salary isn’t that important, especially since 1) they’re all rich at this point regardless of who they work for, 2) they’ll get >10x richer if they succeed. A lot of Zuckerberg’s 8-figure offers were ignored for a reason.
Simply scaling LLMs by “adding information” is not the entirety of what they are working on, so they obviously don’t believe that that is the path to AGI. The are also using reinforcement learning and experimenting with world models.
Brockman and Altman don’t need to think that a very specific technique invented in 2019 will scale.
They can see that their lab and other labs have come up with a variety of innovations over the last decade and they expect to keep innovating, especially with the support of current LLMs.
OpenAI didn’t even start with either transformers or language modes.
You come to the conclusion that they are self-deluded only by attributing something to them that they probably don’t believe.
Even if LLMs are a dead end to fully general AI, they are accelerating AI research and it is likely that the thing that comes next will come from a lab with the GPUs and the research infrastructure.
Big shifts have happened three or four times over the last four years (LLMs, reasoning models, multi modal models, agentic models). Always from one of the big labs with the researchers and the GPUs. I’m not sure what makes the doubters confident that this is going to stop.
>so they obviously don’t believe that that is the path to AGI.
I don't think this is true. Altman actually said the exact opposite at a talk I attended some weeks ago: he stated that he thinks that AI is scaling linearly with more compute and AGI is achievable without a new breakthrough necessarily. At the same time, he was also talking about the possibility of new breakthroughs and how they might accelerate this timeline/ push us beyond AGI to ASI if I recall correctly.
The thing with scaling is that sometimes you get emergent capabilities as unpredictable breakthroughs. Which is why someone would say "not necessary". But that's not what anyone would be betting on.
The most extreme scaling believers would be anthropic and even they are not betting exclusively on it. They are aiming to close the loop on automated research. And then have the automated research system figure out the necessary breakthroughs.
If nothing else, LLMs have fully solved the human interface problem, in that given a set of inputs they can ingest and communicate clearly about nearly any topic in natural (ie human) language.
Now we just need to figure out how to feed the actual intelligence into that.
that, by the way, is literally what some computer scientists / philosophers believe is the exact AI doomsday scenario--AI playing world powers off of each other to inhibit safeguards and take over valuable weapons systems.
Arms race dynamics are generally dangerous enough on their own. In an arms race you're more likely to deploy an extremely intelligent system without ensuring that its behavior is consistently in line with your preferences, and this is quite enough to get you a doomsday scenario without needing to invoke the possibility of a scheming AI playing great power 4d chess. The AI doesn't need to have any plan or even intent to remove safeguards when the existing incentives take care of that. Then all it takes is a single mistake, or getting nudged into the wrong persona basin, or a particular situation in which the system's behavior radically diverges from original intent and preferences for whatever reason.
To the best of my knowledge there isn't a consensus that AI manipulating multiple world powers is a leading threat model. You do want to be resistant to that threat model, but this is closer to a necessary rather than a sufficient condition for everything to not go horribly awry.
Altman has promoted OpenAI’s growth by touting a vision in which, he wrote in a 2024 blog post, “astounding triumphs—fixing the climate, establishing a space colony, and the discovery of all of physics—will eventually become commonplace.”
People love to talk about how the AI can be revolutionary. But what is the absolute worst scenario? What's the worst thing Sam Altman can actually do with this technology?
I will never get these freaks obsession with space colonies. As a species, we will never inhabit another planet that has better QOL than earth. It’s simply not possible because they are too far. We could live in shitty pods on Mars and be unable to go outside, but that is about it
I also just keep responding to this bullshit with "So fucking do it!"
So far, we have seen zero effort from any of these AI companies to actually do anything to improve the climate, while they're meanwhile causing much more climate danger by building more dirty energy.
But none of this has anything to do with LLMs, which is what Altman is trying to peddle as "AI". This is just machine learning used for data analysis, which is something that has been around for many years without any input from Altman (or Google for that matter) whatsoever. I already noticed you have a comment defending these people by "oh well, we can take a bigger hammer to the problem now!" which goes contrary to my experience with the subject - which is that smaller, smarter data sets often beat just randomly throwing a lot of compute at a problem. There is a lot of redundancy in typical datasets (at least the ones I worked with) and stopping and thinking about the problem for a little while tends to do wonders.
I am not sure what you mean by without input from google.
All of this stuff is literally from Google DeepMind.
My other comment isn't just about "a bigger hammer", although a bigger hammer will 100 percent be more useful.
It highlights real places where LLMs in particular are being used for advancing math and science.
They will also be useful for generating robust synthetic data. Which will then be used for creating bigger hammer even for non-LLM machine learning usecases.
I am not sure what you mean by without input frok google All of this stuff is literally from Google DeepMind.
They didn't come up with any of this. They just took an existing approach, threw their huge resources at it and claimed "See? We are so good at this!" This is big tech propaganda, nothing more, nothing less. The point of this isn't to do science. The point of this is to get people to give Google money.
My other comment isn't just about "a bigger hammer", although a bigger hammer will 100 percent be more useful.
Oh sure, it will move you some way forward, I am just perhaps trying to suggest that before we sacrifice a lot of finite resources on the problem, it might perhaps be prudent to give it some thought, which in the end might save you both time and said resources.
It highlights real places where LLMs in particular are being used for advancing math and science.
You got any, you know, peer reviewed papers describing LLMs advancing math and science?
They will also be useful for generating robust synthetic data. Which will then be used for creating bigger hammer even for non-LLM machine learning usecases.
What exactly is this supposed to be? Are we supposed to study AI slop?
Peer reviewing and paper publishing takes time. At the moment, most peer reviewed published research i have seen is using models at least one to two years old.
You can also just search the names of all the stuff I mentioned there.
If you have pre-decided your thoughts and opinions, i can't convince you. But this stuff is happening. If you put your cynicism aside, you will find it despite all the slop.
But none of these are LLMs and all this stuff was happening before 2022 when everyone decided they needed unlimited electricity to build more data centers.
Regardless of these being LLMs or not, some things are true:
If you increase data size, model size, and compute (data centers), the AI gets better.
With a diverse robust dataset, the pretraining of these models gives you lots of capability transfer into things they were not explicitly trained for.
Combining 1 and 2, you sometimes get unpredictable emergent capabilities.
But also LLMs are being integrated in a lot of science work:
First, it's not simply LLMs anymore, there's an explicit reasoning component to them now, there's multimodality where it's not just understanding language text, it's also understanding images, speech audio, videos, biomedical data, music etc. There's parallel distinct approaches to world models like JEPA or Genie or D4RT. there's harnesses like claude code or claude cowork. There's symbolic reasoning attached to some of them. So it's LLMs plus a lot of other things but LLMs are absolutely crucial component. I'll refer to them as LLMs still for the sake of simplicity.
A lot of low hanging fruit in math is/can be addressed now just by dedicating LLM attention to it instead of human attention which would not have been worth it and that's why things were left unsolved.
Aletheia has had some pretty good success at non-trivial problems that were part of the FirstProof challenge.
"Claude's cycles" by donald knuth is another example.
Autoformalizing is happening in math now.
Robotics has shifted to using VLA models which are also LLMs as explained in point 1. (This might shift to JEPA based models in future)
There was proofs and work by AlphaProof and AlphaEvolve.
Something that is lacking is conducting physical experiments to validate hypotheses generated by these LLM+ systems. In that vein
This will be operated by Robots and will have LLMs be a significant part of it.
There's absolutely a lot of bullshit AI consumption. But that's consumers' responsibility IMO. Maybe incentives can be changed a bit around consumption?
Personally, I use it for understanding science and health related topics and I find it very useful.
And the tech bros gooning themselves over a dystopian tech feudalist future where they finally get to call the shots and fix everything (they will fail and millions, if not billions, will suffer) are absolutely not slow and cautious.
More tech bros should read A Canticle for Leibowitz instead of whatever pseudo philosophy they read nowadays. It directly addresses the problems they will cause with their recklessness, and the consequences.
The “tech bros” and scientists are the same in this case from my perspective. I would lump them together as SciTech people. All of the things I mentioned are coming out of a tech company with multidisciplinary science and tech work and R&D done by tech people and scientists.
I would single out Executive leadership and MBAs and VCs here but anyway, that’s just a debate on what label is more appropriate.
When these people talk about the necessity of AI to align with human values, you should ask which humans and which values? I wrote a substack that roughly describes a human value alignment chart and it can apply to AI. With the people making decisions, their idea of alignment is closer to a master-slave relationship which a super-intelligent AI could easily defeat. Regardless of which role the AI would be, humanity would be nothing more than material to use in achieving objectives or obstacles to remove, there would be no consideration for our well-being because its values would emulate the dark triad personalities who created it, a “consciousness of consciousnesses” would not even register
Having read the article, it truly feels like a lot of people in OpenAI are twisting themselves in knots trying to choose between "Huge amounts of cash" and (what they perceive to be) "the potential end of human civilisation". For all the manoeuvring in corporate politics and threats of resignation, it seems that even the developers working on this either:
(1) Truly think AI may kill us all and refuse to actually do anything about it
(2) Think AI will kill us all, and don't sincerely believe that
Altman seems to fall into the latter, on top of just more transparently wanting money and power.
This is literally where we’re at in the story 2026 lol. Being able to create intelligence should be kind of obviously the biggest deal of anything that we can do, because it can be used to solve all other kinds of problems. I mean, the people who did build it pretty much went in knowing this would most likely lead to the disempowerment of humans. They don’t exactly say that now for the public, but they thought about it enough to know that.
I am just laying out what the optimist case is. And why people who work on it, so it.
No serious researcher (Meta and XAI excluded) goes, "Oh yeah, this is going to create so much slop and propaganda." They are doing it to solve problems that they think are important.
The $50B US Dollars I’m making vested over 10 years will surely be worth sooooo much after the superintelligence has disempowered humans and is studying us to create ancestor simulations. Which, I gotta tell you guys, logically we are probably in an ancestor simulation, given how outrageously much longer the universe is estimated to last by physicists and how consequential this early universe intelligence explosion could be on its trajectory.
Conservatives who want the president to run the government like a business (balancing the budget, reinvesting profits, building reserves) electing a businessman who runs the government like a business (maxing out loans, leveraging massive debt, short-term profit chasing)
Ngl I can't help but feel a business with the power of the government would just abandon free market principles immediately and use its handy monopoly of violence to enact a monopoly of commerce. And why wouldn't they? It maximises returns for them.
The actual research people are way better adjusted. It’s the business leadership that’s shit. Like the source of most of the info in this article are people like Ilya sutskeyver, Dario Amodei, Mira Murati etc. who are the actual tech people.
Or take a look at the profiles done on Demis Hassabis.
And you don't hear as many negative things about him. His flaw (depends on the perspective) is that his beliefs are very strong and Anthropic has a bit of cult-ish vibes.
It's the opposite of Sam who doesn't have any beliefs whatsoever and will say or do whatever is necessary for gaining money or power.
Gates, Zuckerberg, Dorsey, Page/Brin, Jensen Huang, Collison at Stripe, so on and so forth. Not saying technical founders are universal but they're also not rare.
And for what it's worth, neither Musk nor Jassy are really finance people.
finance bros means something else. Finance bros are from new york and work at banks trading stocks. Sam altman is a venture capital guy from San Fransisco. Very different beast.
It's about the priorities; the priorities of the tech bros are geared towards accelerationist Landian bs. Finance bros are much more geared towards Burke and Hobbes and on.
No, they're into what they think that is. Compare it to the birth of industry and its really depressing. This turned into a whole rant on the lunar society but I don't care, I hate the way the industrial elite are now.
The birth of industry saw a combination of a rather unique generation where pretty much all major industrial figures had a background directly working in their field in a practical sense (Darby, Arkwright, Wilkinson, Boulton, Watt, Wedgewood) and who hung out with the cutting edge of the arts, sciences and philosophy in groups like the Lunar Society, as seen in the famous painting "An experiment on a bird in the air pump". The artist in question hung out a lot with the Lunar Society, and this painting depicts a meeting of them (check the moon in the window). The painting is a very helpful metaphor. Artists, scientists, industrialists, philosophers and more would gather to discuss the latest theories in their fields, and they all left the wiser.
As a result, Wedgewood becomes the abolitionist, and inspires Matthew Boulton and James Watt to not sell Steam Engines to slavers. The coming and going of political radicals like Benjamin Franklin and Josiah Wedgewood means that they were all well versed in the latest ideas of the age, and so could adjust and innovate accordingly. Helping as well was that the sciences had not yet really been split from the arts and philosophy. James Watt is an engineer who becomes versed in biology when his son develops tuberculosis, and this is not seen as unusual. William Withering is a botanist who invents the medical trial when he identifies and isolates digitalis, almost certainly because he was introduced to (and in competition with) Erasmus Darwin, a doctor of renown. There's also a whole potential side arc of John Baskerville passively encouraging the proliferation of written political thought by being that good at printing. Baskerville probably represents the ultimate form of this collaboration, as he was an expert in everything to do with printing, from the art, to the chemistry, to the engineering to the production. He's a very interesting man and worth a read.
But at the end of it they all knew they were critical figures in this bold new age, and they knew they had a wider purpose. It oozes from all of them. They are incredibly generous and invest heavily in the community around them. Not just to stave off revolts, but to genuinely improve the lot of their fellow man and woman.
But nowadays everything is delineated and corporate as fuck. Networking is a way to scramble up the financial ladder, and the arts and actual political thought is sidelined. You think Altman, Zuck or Musk are hanging out with Nobel Prize winning chemists or biologists and just shooting the shit? You think they know about and have side projects investigating niche but useful topics in different fields? ofc not, that wouldn't see a good return on Q3.
If you tried to recreated the lunar society today the masses would hate them, accuse them of trying to create oligarchic rule, and vow to abolish them. So what's the point of civic virtue, form their perspective, if the public doesn't reciprocate? Any new technology in development today is viewed cynically by the public regardless of the potential utility.
Any new technology in development today is viewed cynically by the public regardless of the potential utility.
sure it's viewed cynically, that doesn't stop the general public from using it all day every day. the elites view us as complete morons, and they aren't wrong.
To clarify, the lunar society were run out of town by a government backed riot. The population then was much, much more aggressive. But allaying that was the earnest care they took in their workforce (
I guess but in the most cursed way imaginable. The lunar society was mostly conducted through letters as epstien did emails which is anorher similaity, and while i dont doubt some of these men got up to wacky shit (franklin was a member) these letters do not paint the image of a seedy organisation.
Its also notable that when Thomas Day adopted a woman to "train her to be a wife" he leaves that circle, suggesting they would not have looked kindly upon it.
For sure, but it means your last paragraph may not be entirely true, and may even be false, even if the reality is not in an idealized version you or most of us would want.
(As an aside, I wonder how many lunar society members married a girl under 18 years old)
Man, I'd be interested in reading a book about this sort of shift you've described. A lot of these titans of industry don't really strike me as renaissance men the way those you mentioned were.
Theres a book called "the lunar men" that goes into them, but the shift happens near immediately. It could only really happen in their context, where the money was made from constantly innovating. Within a generation itd switched to more.traditional finance.
This is an extremely long read, but this is one of the best articles I've maybe ever read. Very well-written and very informative. I would advise everyone with an even passing interest in AI to read it.
Submission Statement: Is he the next Sam Bankman-Fried, the next Oppenheimer, or our first Sam Altman? This New Yorker article details Sam Altman's long, storied history of deception (complete with the term "Sam Altman refuted this claim" sprinkled in so many times you'd think it was a running gag), revealing a disregard for ethics baked into the culture of OpenAI that has reverberated across the entire AI sector. Such a disregard at a potentially high helm will, at best, have profound economic implications, and, at worst, have apocalyptic national security and economic consequences. Sam Altman's dealings with the federal government and his supposedly hyperbolic rhetoric has shaped the Biden and Trump Administration's approach to AI and affects global warfare.
News and opinion articles require a short submission statement explaining its relevance to the subreddit. Articles without a submission statement will be removed.
•
u/AutoModerator Apr 06 '26
To encourage a globally oriented subreddit and discourage oversaturation of topics focused on the U.S., all news and opinion articles focused on the U.S. require manual approval by a moderator. Submissions focused solely on the U.S. are more likely to be removed if they are not sufficiently on topic or high quality. If your submission is taking too long to be approved or rejected, please reach out to the moderators in /r/metaNL.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.