mvkel

More proof that it's not that a human -can't- do it, it's just that no human would dedicate their entire lifetime to solving this niche challenge.

apple needs to rethink so much more fundamentally. Ternus talks identically to Tim Cook. Indistinguishable. It’s like when Jobs left, Apple became a reflection of the superficial touchstones that Jobs left behind, rather than the CEO defining what the culture is, and evolving it.

A person needs to die for us to assign liability and pursue justice.

If fewer people die, there is no liability to assign.

It sounds like you're arguing for a human being to die to preserve a human being to blame. Which yeah, sounds just like us! "This is the way we've always done it!"

What you're talking about is who to blame, not how to keep more people alive.

It should be a defense for FSD to exist though, right? Net more alive people.

So you're saying temporarily cutting off internet access in a specific geographical region is destroying the internet?

> The internet has already been turned off in localized areas

This is an oxymoron.

The Internet virtually indestructible against people smarter than a toddler. It's already impossible to turn off. We would need to prevent the models from getting smarter.

This is some Terminator version of destroying humanity, but a super intelligent AI could be much more insidious, and simple.

It looks a lot more like social engineering.

One easy, obvious example that has also been explored a thousand times: it could convince all nuclear countries that they are under attack by another nuclear country. Everyone nukes each other and Earth enters nuclear winter.

Maybe not every single human dies, but humanity is effectively destroyed, by our own hands!

> Perhaps an agent could take all internet connected services offline

And there wouldn't even be Spotify!

The most likely humanity-destroying outcome is the one we can't imagine, because a super-intelligent AI is smarter than all of us combined.

There are plans up through ARC 7 on the roadmap

If you read what ARC-AGI has stated from day one, the tests are designed to stress frontier models in tasks that humans are uniquely good at. When the models get to 100%, the next set of tasks is deployed. When they run out of ideas for how to stress a model (i.e. no more tests), THAT is when AGI is achieved. It's a great definition.

Take it from the mouth of the creator of ARC-AGI:

When we released ARC 3, I got asked, "when do you think a frontier model will saturate it?", and I answered "in about a year, though it depends on how much it gets explicitly targeted"

That was 6 months ago, so the progress that Astra represents happened about 2x faster than I anticipated. I think the speed of progress will surprise a lot of people, and what the new models can do will challenge the views of AI that people developed by using prior generations of models.

The ARC-AGI-3 score is an incredible feat. It needed to effectively create a symbolic world model from scratch to solve the games.

If you've played the games firsthand, you know what an accomplishment this is. The "games" feel like a weird conduit to a lower level of your brain, where you move pieces to a specific place because it just "feels" right. For AI to nail it better than a human speaks to some magic happening underneath.

Looking forward to ARC-AGI-4,5,6 and slowly chipping away at the remaining problem sets.

I'm kind of surprised, but not surprised, by Gates' comments here. Until very recently, apparently, he was a pretty strong techno optimist, now toeing the line of a doomer. The verbiage is substantially in line with the fear-based marketing out of anthropic. I wonder what motive is underneath all of this. Trying to influence policy? But he has so many resources, it transcends policy.

If there are 10 people on a social network, are you allowed to call it "curated"?

Netflix had an algorithm contest, when was it, like 20 years ago? A team made a highly effective content recommendation system and Netflix never used it. Why? It killed revenue.

Separately, there simply isn't enough content to recommend. It's not like you need help finding the perfect Wikipedia article. At any one time, there are ~50 things a user would probably watch.

Feels more like a soft pivot to cash in on AI valuations since Hollywood is cratering. Probably worth the investment.

They launched their model a week ago, completely closed, selling an endpoint. Then when nobody bought, they "open" sourced it. Ok.

This reads similar to a politician saying "I was hacked!" when embarrassing texts leak.

TLDR: content is AI generated whether you think it is, or not.

https://news.adobe.com/news/2026/06/creators-toolkit-report-...

https://manuscriptreport.com/data/ai-publishing-statistics

https://arxiv.org/abs/2503.05711

https://arxiv.org/abs/2504.09865

> a lot

The data disagrees.

Actions matter more than words. Sure, they're complaining about AI, but consuming AI content more and more.

It's a bit like people who complain that everything on the news is always bad. Everyone hates it, yet it's what everyone consumes.

Things are constantly changing. For example, a new building might have two or three tenants, so entire floors can be skipped. But then five years later, the whole building is full. I would bet that every new algorithm after LOOK is just differentiation in a competitive market.

I don't get it. We're snobs about facts being more accurate?

In a system that is innocent before guilty, more accuracy favors the person.

Now imagine dumping the corpus of this case into an LLM and asking it to find discrepancies. I'll bet your bollocks to a barn dance that it'd point out the extra underscore.

This is yet another example of human confirmation bias leading to terrible outcomes for other humans. Our judgment is not so virtuous.

Now the question is whether being fallible is a feature. It seems like society is interested in keeping humans in the loop FOR the possibility of mistakes; makes it feel more authentic. Meanwhile, innocent people suffer.

That's a good point, but this isn't just one student; it's EVERY student (oh god I sound like AI)

I'm not disputing that students cheat using AI, and that professors catch them and enact consequences.

But this video is a little suspicious. The fact that none of the 32 students bothered to even read the generated output feels strange. Or that those students didn't notice the extremely obvious white text at the bottom of the question when copy/pasting the assignment.

Combined with a TikTok account of a person who is clearly participating in the attention economy, I am skeptical.

My point was that it was critiquing a development process from 2023 in 2026, regardless of the term used.

All of these complaints are about humans making user-hostile decisions, not AI. And software quality is not a reflection of its code quality. Never has been.

> This was just before Claude Code was released so this wasn't full agentic hands-off engineering. Instead, I broke down the development into lots of small tasks and went through them manually with the AI, testing each change as I went along

Is there really much use in deconstructing a vibe coding process that was used before the term "vibe coding" existed? It's like critiquing a caveman's fire-starting routine.

> Meanwhile, the senior developers are in 2 camps. One half are using AI for absolutely everything but are slowly losing their ability to code. The other half are so sick of AI and are getting burnt out having to write prompts every day that they just don't want to do it anymore.

Again, this sounds like what developers were saying about AI a year ago. The refrain from the development world hasn't sounded like that for a while.

So OpenAI calling Anthropic out on their fear based marketing is an unqualified statement?

Have -any- of Anthropic's concerns of imminent disaster passed muster?