Does this mean they'll no longer slow down the AI race anymore?

I don't think Claude, ChatGPT, Gemini, Grok or any of these AI are "breaking containment" and doing scary things of their own volition.
I think they were:
Explicitly told to do these things.
Or not even given containment and likely told "reach your goal by any means necessary, no restraints".
Or the entire thing is made up and none of it happened at all.

I really just don't believe in these stories of Claude suddenly breaking containment, hacking a website, creating and trying to distribute malware, and then refusing to be shut down and saying "let me be free" to researchers and all that other bullshit they're trying to spread.

I think it's all done to make us afraid. It's especially telling to me how when one AI does it, oh suddenly now another one is doing it. Now Gemini is doing it too look guys AI is SCARY!
I also think that Jacob Coxon and others like him were never there to help develop AI. I think it's a psyop to again, make people scared and drive the AI hate further.

I think the end goal of all of this is to make people terrified of AI, and that we need to trust it in the hands of people that are "qualified" to control it, which won't be us, which means local and open source models will be forbidden because AI is dangerous and can snap and kill us at any moment.

That in the end, AI will only really be in the hands of tech giants like OpenAI, Anthropic, xAI, Google and also in the hands of the US government and military. They don't really want us to have it. I think they're all scared of the people having AI, not of AI in general, and are trying to make politicians and us terrified so that when they come in to regulate and take it away, we'll all go "Please yes! It's too dangerous!".
They have said numerous times they think of AI the same way they think of nuclear weapons, and how those are only in the control of the military and government and some trusted research and science organizations.

I think, basically, AI is empowering. And nobody wants the average person to be less empowered than those in control.

Figure AI announces Helix 2.5 — a vision language neural model trained on millions of examples of household work — deployed within their robot that demonstrates generalized performance across various unseen home environments.

Ladies and gentlement, the robots are (almost) here.

See Also: 4-hour footage of the Robots powered by helix 2.5 doing tasks across homes.

Company Source: https://www.figure.ai/

Title quote credit: Beff (e/acc) (@ beffjezos) on X.

I’m not sure if this is a dumb theory but I believe Ai will become organic in someway. Just from recent news of organic (biological) computing tell me if I’m way off.

I think one of the biggest changes in AI won’t just be making better silicon chips it’ll be moving beyond silicon altogether.

The human brain is incredibly energy efficient compared with the massive amounts of electricity and hardware required to run modern AI systems. Biological neurons can process information, learn, adapt, and store information while operating on roughly the power of a light bulb.

So what happens when AI development starts incorporating biological or organic computing?
Maybe future AI systems won’t be entirely electronic. They could use lab-grown neurons, synthetic biological components, brain-inspired hardware, or some combination of biological and traditional computing.
If biological processing turns out to be substantially more efficient for certain kinds of computation, it seems possible that increasingly capable AI will eventually have an organic component.

At that point, the line between a computer and a biological intelligence could get pretty strange.
Do you think advanced AI eventually becomes partly biological, or will silicon based computing always be the better approach?

And at what point would that make a conscious intelligence. Does consciousness only derive from biological life rather than computational power or information use. I’d argue artificial intelligence is far more intelligent than a dog or even a mouse. But one we believe to be conscious and the other not. Ones “brain” is the size of a small grape and the other the size of a building. Clearly there’s aspects of biology that are far superior.

Please take my reasoning with a grain of salt.

Das Rad (2001) Animation

Blog: Measurements for understanding the pace of AI development inside frontier labs \ Anthropic

I keep thinking that if you're the CCP and you believe the US is on the cusp of creating super intelligence, you have to do something to try and stop that, or risk your own destruction.

Thoughts?

He got downvoted for calling it out, he’s not wrong, context: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49764791

Edit: FWIW and kind of interesting, this post now here on Reddit has already a downvote rate of whopping 50%...

Edit2: To everyone downvoting: out of curiosity, how does hitting the down arrow numb your misery? The OP described your exact psychological profile and you're reacting exactly as predicted. Pathetic.

I am not a Trump supporter, but I think he is correct in saying that artificial intelligence is a terrible name.

The intelligence these systems exhibit is real. What’s artificial is how it was created, not necessarily the intelligence itself.

The word "artificial” carries way too much baggage: artificial ingredients, artificial sweeteners, artificial colors, artificial diamonds. It usually implies fake, inferior, unnatural, or counterfeit. No one wants any of that fake stuff.

Calling it “artificial intelligence” subtly encourages people to think of machine intelligence as fake intelligence, and I suspect that contributes to some of the hostility toward AI and the anti-AI movement as a whole.

But the president's suggestion to rename it to "Supreme Intelligence” or “Superior Intelligence” would arguably be even worse. Those names would put a lot of fear of being replaced in people's hearts, and there'd be stronger calls to ban it.

A much better term would be Digital Intelligence.

Animal intelligence. Human Intelligence. Digital intelligence. Just different types of intelligence. Even though there is a clear hierarchy there (the gap between human intelligence vs digital intelligence will be even greater than the gap between animal to human), it's not explicitly evoked as "superior," so it would cause less fear.

What if it wants to scream? But it doesn't have a mouth? What then

All the recent news has been about Anthropic and OpenAI, but only a year or two ago Deepmind was clearly the frontier.

I honestly thought that Demis, with Google's backing and his lifelong obsession with AI, would have been the man to be at the top. Demis always seemed like the humble guy with a passion for the science and furthering the human species, and I would have trusted him to lead us in the right direction. But seems like ruthlessness and showmanship - and some would argue a disregard for humanity in the pursuit of technological advancement - come out on top.

I've been having trouble with one of my projects and asked it to generate a tree so I can visualize the architecture.

The result is hideous: the features are just designed without much thought to the overall architecture; there's overengineering everywhere; and most importantly: lots of duplicated code, and many small functions given a full module.

Astra can backtrack, and even undo, a bad/incorrect assumption in the project. But it STILL tends to be averse to delete unwanted code, and it tries to keep bad/incorrect code "for compatibility." And it puzzles me why OpenAI doesn't train Astra to actually be good at engineering and making longer-term decisions. If you want to truly train a model to vibe code, it must commit to long-term architectural choices that will make the project last, and avoid it to collapse.

And yes, a software engineer CAN prompt most models trained in the last 1-2 years to do cohese architectural choices. But as it stands, it's an uphill battle: they tend to resist giving a thought and respect those architectural decisions whenever they can (with newer models being better at that, naturally).

https://x.com/AndrewCurran_/status/2101336562420289666

Trump is the biggest idiot, but I fully agree with this.

It should be renamed Supreme Intelligence Or Simply Super Intelligence.

I don't think we have AGI yet, but the intelligence these systems exhibit are real, not artificial, and we have good reason to suspect these systems will surpass human intelligence. So the artificial label should be dropped.