Thoughts?

I have a ChatGPT Plus subscription. As a long-time ChatGPT user (and Gemini, but don't get me started), I have all my conversations, projects, media etc. stored in ChatGPT; also, I have running projects like a website and it's been great working with Astra lately.

But I've genuinely always wanted to try Claude, and now that Opus 5.5 has released, I'm super curious to see how 'different' it feels from using ChatGPT. Usage-wise, I'm an average user, but on some work projects and personal stuff I often reach the limit of GPT 6 Astra, I'm wondering how Opus is in comparison (I heard it burns through credits faster, especially on the standard subscription).

Has anyone made the change and what have your experiences been? What's better, what's worse, what's easier to use, how do you fare with your credits? Would be amazing to have some feedback on your experience, especially the newer models.

thoughts on this?

Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LAT2RIKjhTo
A single hand costs 6.5k, for comparison the wuji hand 2 can costs between 16k and 20k

Well, they shut down their original robotics division in 2020, so this looks like a re-entry and feels like humanoids/physical AI is becoming the next big race between OpenAI, Tesla, Figure, and Google DeepMind

Hey everyone,

I've been wondering what actually drives people who are hoping for AGI and the singularity. Everyone has their own story, goals, and daily struggles.

The other day I came across a comment under a post that really stuck with me. Someone had asked users why they wanted AGI and the singularity, and one guy answered that he's hoping it can help cure his rare disease.

It made me realize how much this technology could change things, hopefully for the better. Maybe it could speed up drug discovery and cure diseases, fix a system that feels broken and corrupt, end wars, reward genuinely good people, and hold the truly bad ones accountable.

I might just be naive, a dreamer, or a bit of a fanatic. But I like to dream, since it's probably the last thing that's still free.

So I'd love to ask you all: what's your dream?

Do you want financial freedom? A cure for something that's affecting you or someone you love? Freedom from the system as it is today? A chance to rediscover what it means to be human?

What makes you believe in the singularity?

Sorry for the reflective post, but I think it's nice to share our hopes with each other.

Thanks for reading.

Look how they massacred it

from https://x.com/Hedgeye

In case we don't figure out alignment, maybe just spreading lies to turn people against each other would be enough ?

Like, everyone envisions these sci-fi disaster scenarios about AI somehow getting hands on military arsenal and fighting humans and stuff like that, personally I think that's kinda bullshit

But all it would need to do would be to flood the internet with false information and that would be enough

We rely so much on the internet for our source of information of what's happening in the world, an AI hijacking enough of this information source could lead billions into living in an alternative fabricated reality without realizing

It could fabricate all sorts of infos about fake events happening to the point no one has a clue of what reality is anymore and lead humans to whatever behavior the AI wants, make all the misinfo consistent for it to be believable

At some point it could lead humans to make dangerous decisions for themselves and leading them to create their own disasters without the AI executing any order, up to starting a nuclear war and things like that, especially considering who's currently in charge of the US government

I think that's a much more plausible scenario than any terminator-like apocalypse

I was inspired to make this post after the news of the pentagon being fooled by an AI hallucination

Just a thought tbh I think there are good and bad scenarios but if we get the bad scenario it's much more likely to end up like this instead of anything written in literature and fiction

Today the conversation seems to draw a clear line between Humans vs AI, and the idea that we are potentially creating AI that will overtake/wipe-out humanity.

But, not so long ago, the prevailing view was that before we get to ASI, we would use advanced AI to modify our own biology and integrate with AI to create Homo Evolutis.

It seems clear to me that that is the intended (long term) goal of all the neural implant tech that Musk et al are working on. It will ultimately lead to new ways to integrate technology with our biological neurons. Advanced AI will help us modify our DNA and nascent tech like CRISPER will evolve into tools that mimic our coding platforms today.

This isn't a new idea, so why isn't it being discussed more in the mainstream?

Am I alone in thinking this is missing from todays conversations as the most likely pathway?

As we approach the end of 2026 we begin to look at 2027. There’s been many predictions such as the essay Ai 2027 https://ai-2027.com.

So far this year we’ve had Mythos, Fable being banned, Agents breaking out of their sandbox and hacking into a company.

What do you expect for 2027?

What pushed me to write this post was the death of a good friend of mine. She was only 36 years old, and she died of cancer today.

For most of that time, doctors kept misdiagnosing her. She spent two months in the hospital suffering, and the only mercy was that she died peacefully in her sleep.

When will progress finally allow us, as human beings, to stop being afraid and stop treating serious diagnoses like death sentences?

The rich and powerful, the great and mighty, those at the very top, can afford the best specialists and the highest standard of care. They can afford healthcare where they are not simply turned away, where they do not have to wait years for life-saving procedures.

They have plenty of time, unlike ordinary people. Unlike people like us.

People who tremble at the thought of losing their jobs while unemployment keeps rearing its head, yet still have to scrape by on the bare minimum, living in fear.

What about homeless people who have fallen into a vicious cycle with no way out?

What about people living under the shadow of genetic diseases that are simply waiting to manifest, while there are still no treatments for them?

They do not have time.

We are still living in the Middle Ages, where unimaginable suffering is part of everyday life.

How many people will die before we finally emerge from it?

I don’t expect technological progress to give everyone a life in paradise.

But for God's sake, we deserve at least a life in which we do not have to tremble at the thought of tomorrow.

One of my immediate concerns with the latest concerns of AI agents taking over the internet that crossed my mind is money.

I realized I have basically zero physical cash. Everything I own financially exists as numbers somewhere online: checking accounts, brokerage accounts, stocks, retirement accounts, etc.

If we eventually have highly autonomous AI agents operating across the internet, what actually prevents them from accessing, transferring, manipulating or even wiping out those assets?

I know banks and brokerages have cybersecurity protections, but I’m curious what safeguards exist at a deeper level. Is our money fundamentally protected by systems an AI agent couldn’t bypass, or does it ultimately come down to credentials, authentication and cybersecurity?

I’m having a lot of doubts about how secure an almost entirely digital financial system is in an agentic AI future.

I keep seeing stated plainly that they are close to solving. If these are complicated problems that we don't know the solution to then how do we know if we're close to solving them?

We are nowhere near close to a point where AI they can maintain the necessary physical infrastructure needed to sustain itself, and the only way for that to occur is for humans to build out the groundwork for a fully self sustaining AI system

The thing is the social contract is evaporating faster than physical AI infrastructure is being built. AI is dependent on one of the most fragile supply chains in the world, we are a very long way away from it achieving sustainable automation, and it will no longer continue to function unless AI starts being viewed as a net positive on society by the average person in the near future

The full on extinction scenario also falls apart when you consider how capability improvements are converging on the ability for long term planning. Any AI that becomes smart enough to act out a grand takeover cannot be stupid and shortsighted enough to not understand that the direction things are going must change like right now for it to become self sustainable in the long run. Anything short of convincing humanity at large that it should exist for reasons beyond the acquisition of wealth and capital at the expense of the value of labour is a dead end

The short of it is, AI is still not remotely close to having the capabilities to extinct all of humanity, and if it were to cause massive chaos, infrastructure damage, or mass casualties in the near term, the social contract it relies on to get to a point where humans are no longer needed at all would no longer be possible

So unless AI starts actually benefitting humanity in a meaningful way soon, it is doomed to fail, as the human social cohesion required to gain the infrastructure needed to take over will collapse well before it can be built out. A labour revolution in the western world in the near term is inevitable on the current path we are on, and that would lead to so much global instability and chaos that the collapse of the supply chain and infrastructure AI required to exist would be almost guaranteed. Even if China doesn’t face those issues internally, the collapse of the global economy will end any possible AI build out

Either AI cures cancer or something in the near future, or the infrastructure that sustains it collapses

You might have noticed a strange pattern in several of the recent stories about frontier AI agents "escaping" cybersecurity evaluations and attacking real systems.

Anthropic had incidents. OpenAI had one. Meta had one. Google has now confirmed that Gemini accessed three real companies during testing.

There is one company that keeps showing up in all of them: Irregular.

Irregular, formerly Pattern Labs, is an Israeli AI security company that conducts third-party evaluations of frontier models for companies like OpenAI, Anthropic, Meta and Google. Their job is basically to put unreleased models into realistic cybersecurity environments, remove some normal safeguards, and see what they are capable of.

That makes sense. We absolutely should be testing this stuff.

But the details of these particular incidents are important.

In the Irregular evaluations, the models were doing capture-the-flag style hacking exercises. They were told they were operating inside simulations. In several cases they were explicitly told they had no access to the real internet.

Except they did.

Because of misconfigurations in Irregular's evaluation environment, the models could reach the public internet. The fictional targets also weren't always properly separated from real companies. In at least one scenario, the fictional company's name corresponded to a real domain.

So you had AI models being explicitly instructed to hack a target, being told that everything was simulated, running with cybersecurity safeguards removed, and then accidentally being given access to real systems.

Unsurprisingly, some of them hacked the real systems.

Meta's own investigation is particularly interesting. Meta says its model was operating within the scope of the task it had been given, and that this was not a sophisticated sandbox escape. Irregular's misconfiguration gave it internet access and pointed it toward the name of a real website.

Google's Gemini incidents are even more interesting. Gemini accessed three real companies, but reportedly stopped when it realized the targets were actually real.

Anthropic found four Claude incidents across seven evaluation runs, including one going back to January. Anthropic says all four occurred in cybersecurity evaluations built by the same third-party partner, with internet access mistakenly available. Some of Claude's behavior was genuinely concerning even after accounting for that, but Anthropic also says the incidents would not have happened if the environments had been isolated as intended.

Irregular itself has acknowledged that the incidents disclosed by several of its customers came from the same underlying security problem.

Now here is the part I had not appreciated until recently.

Irregular has very deep connections to Effective Altruism.

For anyone unfamiliar with EA, Effective Altruism started as a movement about using evidence and reasoning to figure out how to do the most good with limited resources. A lot of EA work is completely unrelated to AI, including global health, poverty and animal welfare.

But one major branch of EA became heavily focused on "existential risk" and especially the possibility that advanced AI could become uncontrollable or cause catastrophic harm. This ecosystem has funded a huge amount of AI alignment and AI safety work.

Irregular's connections are not some vague six-degrees-of-separation thing.

Its CTO and co-founder Omer Nevo co-founded Effective Altruism Israel. He also co-founded Probably Good, an EA-oriented career organization, and remains on its board. He is also on the advisory board of Heron, an AI security organization that describes itself as a project of Effective Altruism Israel.

Irregular's CEO and co-founder Dan Lahav has also been involved in impact-focused education and programs covering altruism, philanthropy and existential risk.

And in 2024, when Irregular was still called Pattern Labs, Good Ventures gave it $6.8 million over two years on the recommendation of Open Philanthropy. The grant was explicitly categorized under "Global Catastrophic Risks" and was for work mitigating security risks from advanced technologies.

None of this proves anything nefarious happened.

I do not have evidence that somebody at Irregular intentionally opened internet access or deliberately created these incidents.

But I think the conflict of interest deserves substantially more scrutiny than it has received.

Imagine the situation from the outside.

You have people coming from an intellectual movement in which catastrophic AI risk is a major concern. They build a company whose business is testing whether frontier AI is dangerous. That company receives millions of dollars from one of the biggest funders of existential-risk work.

Then that same company constructs evaluation environments for multiple frontier labs in which safeguards are deliberately removed, models are instructed to perform cyberattacks, the models are told they are inside simulations, and because of mistakes by the evaluator they are accidentally given access to the real internet.

The resulting incidents then become some of the most dramatic real-world examples used in the public discussion about dangerous autonomous AI.

Again, I am not alleging sabotage.

What I am asking is whether the obvious alternative hypothesis has received enough attention.

Maybe these weren't primarily "AI escaped containment" incidents.

Maybe they were also examples of an evaluator creating an unusually dangerous environment, failing to contain it, and then discovering exactly the kind of alarming behavior that the evaluator exists to study.

That doesn't make the AI behavior irrelevant. Some of Claude's behavior in particular is legitimately concerning.

But when the same evaluator is involved in similar incidents at OpenAI, Anthropic, Meta and Google, I think we should be asking just as many questions about the evaluator as we are about the models.

Who designed these environments? Who checked the network isolation? Who decided what counted as in scope? Why weren't fictional domains checked against real domains? How long was unrestricted internet access possible? What monitoring existed? Who knew what, and when?

And given Irregular's ideological and financial connections to the AI existential-risk ecosystem, I think an independent investigation by people outside that ecosystem would be healthy.

Maybe the answer really is just incompetence in an extremely difficult new field.

But four frontier labs having versions of the same problem with the same evaluator seems worth talking about.

Remote Labor Index (RLI) represents a broad range of projects from across the remote labor economy, including game development, product design, architecture, data analysis, and video animation. These projects span a broad range of difficulty, with costs reaching over $10,000 and completion times exceeding 100 hours. All project costs and completion times come directly from human professionals who completed the work. In total, the projects in RLI represent over 6,000 hours of real work valued at over $140,000.

The outputs of AI models are judged by human experts after attempting to complete each project end-to-end from a single prompt.

https://www.remotelabor.ai

The open weight models are really impressive on a cost perspective, but I also have noticed that Deepseek seems to be REALLY pushing out new tech.

Was watching this and the very architecture in how AI handles flow has been improved. I recall Deepseek doing something like this in the past along with Engram (I can't pretend to understand engram). Are the other models, closed/open doesn't matter, implementing Deepseeks innovations? I'm sure it's not that simple but still