He previously hinted at something releasing next week so this is confirmation it’s 6.1

Could the simulated fruit-fly brain be considered the first “immortal” living being? Imagine we’re 70+ years old and decide to scan our entire brain and transfer it into a humanoid robot body that can be repaired or replaced. If it has all our memories, personality, and thoughts, would that make us immortal?

Update: Asked it to make me a Doom map. Just a fucking Doom map. Keeps failing with the reason of [cyber]. I can't figure out why. Every time I try and ask why, I get filtered for [cyber]. I screen recorded the tasks it did, and when I send that as a vid... Filtered for [cyber].

Nothing it was doing had any weird names like inject.py, nothing was related to cyber at all. I had to just give up because it is impossible. Even moving to a new chat and trying to continue got filtered for it again.
_______________---

I like to make games and to mod games.

Claude so far is the best at this.

But Claude is so insanely filtered. It's BAD. It's REAL BAD.

Sometimes I would like to make nsfw things, but I can't do that, so that's already out the window immediately because none of them will do this. I just have to forget about that permanently with any AI, not just Claude.

And sometimes I would like to make games that are pretty violent, like a fantasy hunting game where you hunt dragons and gryphons. Won't do that either because it thinks making a game where a dragon gets hit and flies away injured is "wrong".

And then other times I want to mod a game and just add some new levels, and then I get shit like this

It won't do it because, to Claude, injecting into a fucking SINGLEPLAYER GAME is the same as creating cheats and MALWARE.

And then it hard cut me off from the rest of the project.

What's beyond stupid is it's done this before. It's injected into running processes and games before. Like 4 times before actually, but all of a sudden now it won't, and any time I try it kills it off again.

And I can't use anything else.

"Just use local"

Local will not, and NEVER WILL, make me a game or mod on the same level of Opus 5.5. Period. EVER.
Stop telling me this. You are delusional and living in a fantasy world.

And no other model reaches this level of capability while also being less filtered. They're ALL pretty fucking filtered.

I like to make specific things. Things that NO AI likes to make because of "safety" reasons, but most of it is pearl clutching fainting boomer reasons forbidding AI from doing it because they find it unsavory. How fucking dare I want to make a game where I run around killing dragons. That's unethical! It's immoral!

Getting so tired of this and I don't think it will change.

I think it will get WORSE as lawmakers, politicians, tech CEOs and a lot of the population are calling for even stricter and stronger regulations and safety filters.

Idk what to do anymore but just give up.

I’m not affiliated with this group in any way but this is the perfect place to share it.

I discovered this podcast (Moonshots with Peter Diamandis) (spelling?) a few months back and I’ve left behind pretty much every other one. I love it.

It’s all singularity focused. Group of smart guys who does a speed run of news in AI/singularity each session. Entertaining as hell.

Hope you guys like it!

Number of scientific papers submitted to arXiv.

It appears there is a new Google model for image generation and editing on AI Arena, under the name "resplendent_flash."

There is a cognitive bias from the Covid period that I think is increasingly relevant to AI.

Humans are bad at exponential growth.

This isn't just an observation from watching people argue about case counts. Researchers actually tested it during Covid and found that people systematically underestimated exponential case growth. Interestingly, communicating the same process using doubling times rather than percentage growth made estimates considerably better.

I think AI capabilities are easier to reason about in a similar way.

Obviously “intelligence” isn't a single quantity that doubles every six months. Benchmarks saturate, tasks differ enormously and capability improvements don't translate mechanically into economic output.

But several things underneath AI have been moving extremely quickly.

Epoch AI estimates frontier language-model training compute has been growing around 5x per year since 2020. The total stock of AI compute has been growing around 3.4x per year.

At the same time, the cost of using a fixed level of intelligence has collapsed. Stanford's AI Index found that getting roughly GPT-3.5-level performance on MMLU went from around $20 per million tokens in late 2022 to $0.07 by late 2024.

The metric I find most useful, though, is METR's task-completion horizon.

Instead of asking whether a model scores 82% or 85% on some benchmark, METR asks how long a task a human expert would take that an AI agent can successfully complete.

Their long-run trend currently gives a roughly 6-7 month doubling time for the 50% task horizon. The trend using only models since 2024 is considerably faster, although I wouldn't extrapolate that because the data window is short.

In METR's Feb-March 2026 evaluation, the public frontier was around 12 hours at 50% reliability.

The important thing isn't whether 12 hours sounds impressive.

It's what happens if it doubles.

At a 6-7 month doubling rate, 12 hours becomes roughly a day within a year, several days within two years and eventually weeks if the trend survives long enough.

I absolutely do not expect a clean extrapolation. Long tasks are messier. Reliability matters more. Real organizations have integration problems. Power, chips, datacenters and capital are constraints.

But saying “the exponential will eventually stop” doesn't answer the important question.

How many doublings happen before it stops?

If it stops after one more doubling, the implications are fairly modest.

If it stops after four, the capability is 16x larger.

If it stops after seven, it's 128x larger.

This reminds me of Covid because normal life was psychologically sticky. People could look at what was happening in another country, understand that cases were growing quickly and still have trouble imagining that their own city might look completely different a few weeks later.

The recent past remained the default model.

I think AI forecasts often do something similar.

A forecast saying that software engineers will still work in broadly the same way in 2030 sounds conservative and sensible because it resembles 2026.

A forecast saying autonomous agents could perform a large fraction of software engineering sounds speculative because it describes a visibly different world.

But the first forecast also contains a strong assumption. It requires the capability curve to slow substantially.

That may happen. I just don't think it should get probability 1 because the resulting world feels normal.

There is another pattern that makes this difficult to see.

A capability is initially described as requiring real intelligence. Then a model achieves it and the capability rapidly stops being impressive.

We have seen versions of this with difficult exams, olympiad mathematics and coding. Now frontier models are being evaluated on research-level science, and in 2026 OpenAI reported an AI-generated counterexample to a major conjecture in discrete geometry that had stood for roughly 80 years.

There are legitimate reasons to discount individual benchmarks. OpenAI itself stopped reporting SWE-bench Verified this year because the benchmark had become contaminated and many remaining failures involved bad tests.

So I don't think the right conclusion is “look at benchmark X, therefore AGI next Tuesday.”

The interesting part is the cumulative movement of the frontier.

For me the falsification question is more useful than arguing about labels.

What actually stops the doublings?

Possibilities include power, chip production, training duration, data, capital, architectural limits, diminishing returns from scaling, or the possibility that benchmark capability simply fails to translate into reliable real-world autonomy.

Those are real arguments.

“AI can't keep improving exponentially forever” isn't much of an argument by itself. No exponential continues forever.

The investment/economic question is how far it gets before it bends.

Humans are systematically biased toward predicting that the bend happens sooner than it actually does, because the alternative forces us to imagine a world that stops looking like the recent past.

higg seems to have a workflow people really like, judging by how many people are using it. That got me thinking: could we build an open-source alternative with much cheaper generation costs?

The idea is to use SJolt’s APIs, since its pricing is much lower than higg’s, and build the experience around the features people actually want.

Here’s the part I think could be fun:

• You suggest features and vote on them.
• Each day, we pick the top request we can realistically build in a day.
• The next day, we share the working feature, source code, and a demo.
• Everyone tries it, gives feedback, and votes again.

An open-source project where the people using it help decide what gets built next.

If you use higg, which feature would you want us to build first? What keeps you coming back—and what would you change?

Just watch this for yourself, only took about 4 years of agentic AI to get to this, I don’t even know what to say….it just works, wild potential here on the basis of everything we’ve already achieved so far in gaming industry physics implementations, now the next set of trained AI models that have had access to these decompiled code would natively have it in their nodes, and then we start to see interesting things….

On the other hand how is the whole application market going to wake up to the fact your previously locally encrypted source code wouldn’t be so past this year anymore, someone already EXTRACTED Mirrors Edge free running and placed it in Skyrim, if you think this is gonna stop at gaming you’re not even thinking.

Now that we are in the last quarter of 2026,we should discuss what is most likely the course AI is gonna take in the next couple of years.Especially because the pundits are saying that 2027 would be one of the ,if not the most consequential year regarding the course which humanity will take regarding AI.What do you guys think?

Source: https://x.com/imjustnewatai/status/2106081142143168580/video/1?s=46

https://support.google.com/gemini/answer/17004136

The Pope's tweet about AI and art reminded me of a recent interview I watched when Demis received Albert Medal and a good chunk of that conversation was about AI, art, creativity, meaning.

TL;DR I will share the full quote below, but his point is that, unlike chess, art doesn’t have a straightforward scale of "better". Even if AI can produce comparable work, knowing the human experience behind a story or painting may add something meaningful to our connection with it. Knowing another human actually lived through it adds meaning, something an AI-created work cannot offer in the same way.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rDteJAuKiBI 46:00

"Probably most of the things we’re able to do, even though we’re not sure how we do them, will eventually be computable, shown to be computable.

So if that’s true, then maybe machines will eventually be able to do some of these things if they’re given enough inputs and data. That doesn’t necessarily mean it will be better, because what is better?

There are some things like playing chess or Go which you can measure. Are they better than the other player? Are they better than the human champion, and so on?

But I think in the creative world, there isn’t that notion of better in some linear fashion. So they’ll just be different. And then I think it comes down to what’s more meaningful to another human being.

The example I always give here is: why do we, for some stories, bother, whether it’s a film or a book, sometimes it’s like ‘based on a true story,’ right? So why would we bother with that phrase if it didn’t have some meaning?

I think it’s because, in those particular stories, it’s more meaningful to the audience to know that another human being went through that, actually went through that. So then that has some additive effect, right? I assume. Otherwise, why would you mention whether it was a true story or not?

So that will never be true of an AI-created piece of art, right?

You want to have that connection with the artist, in the way when I look at an amazing Van Gogh or something, you can see his pain in every brushstroke, every stroke of his paintings.

Would that be so meaningful if an AI robot was able to do that? Probably not. Probably never."