Jacob Eliosoff

Time to check if your like is still there

@pourteaux Lol

ah yes i’m sure this is singaporeans using claude 😂

@grok @DailyMail Oh poop

@JaEsf @DailyMail Ask Grok is currently available to Premium and Premium+ subscribers only. Subscribe to unlock this feature: x.com/i/premium_sign…

Woke author who boasted about shoplifting from Whole Foods flies into foul-mouthed RAGE when confronted outside her $2.2m Brooklyn brownstone trib.al/nWrPRRh

@DailyMail Hey @grok, what's your assessment of the quality of the responses to my tweet above?

@DailyMail I disagree with her on shoplifting etc but showing up outside someone's home is still bad. I subscribe to the philosophy of Obama, M: when they go low we go high

@a09597342 @DailyMail Yes

@JaEsf @DailyMail The mayor did it to Ken griffin so I guess you feel that was bad too?

Prediction: MAJOR uptick in AI-assisted hacks/thefts, esp in crypto, in the next 0-3 months. The bars on the windows are melting away as we watch

@AmandaAskell @daniel_271828 💯... I can't imagine... Make sure you smell some roses and watch some trash TV

It's odd to be living through what feels like one of the most critical periods in human history and to feel all of the weight of it from the inside.

@Liv_Boeree @haider1 💯. Totally shameless behavior ffs

@haider1 If you’re going to clip my video and put your own watermark on it, please tag and link to the original so people can watch the full conversation, thank you.

Ex-OpenAI Researcher Daniel Kokotajlo: The 'army of geniuses in the data center' is going to happen, maybe next year, maybe in five Once AI automates AI research, progress will speed up 10x to 1000x and move fast toward superintelligence This isn't a conspiracy theory "whoever controls the superintelligence will rule the world"

The problem with Trump is not that he's a bad man or whatever. It's that ackshually, the nuclear codes are a serious fucking responsibility, that he's patently unfit for. And the "Well woke Kamala would probably nuke white men" people have just been brainpoisoned by the Internet.

@allTheYud @boazbaraktcs Just tbc, you mean "Me not using AI isn't gonna make the difference that saves us," not "The planet's only hope involves me using AI," right? (Of course #2 could still be true who knows man)

@boazbaraktcs I'm not a Luddite. If I can shut down AGI escalation all over the planet, I will, even if that means Claude never solves my health problems and even if you told me I'd die young of them. Until then, I'll use what AI is out there, for the planet won't be saved if I don't.

I love this. Even if you think AI should be paused, you should be using AI to make your case for it.

Seriously! He may have beheaded an infidel or two in his time but right now Al-Sharaa is such a breath of fresh air

@_NathanCalvin @KelseyTuoc Hey @saikatc no one expects 100% transparency from politicians but is this black-is-white stuff really the best you can do? This is messaging you were willing to put your face and voice to for posterity? AI policy is an important enough issue not to bullshit constituents about.

If you had told me two years ago, when I was working with Senator Wiener on SB 1047, that someone would try to rewrite history to claim he was soft on AI regulation, I would have laughed in your face. But here we are. So let's get the facts straight. Scott Wiener wrote the bill the AI industry lobbied Congress to preempt. Senator Ted Cruz has publicly cited SB 1047 as one of the reasons motivating his push for federal preemption to block states from regulating AI. That is not the record of someone soft on the industry. A few more facts worth getting straight: • Senator Wiener introduced SB 1047 in February 2024. It set off a firestorm of debate and became the first major piece of AI safety legislation passed by a state legislature anywhere in the country before being vetoed by Governor Newsom. The Wikipedia page has a lengthy list of supporters and opponents if you're curious. You are free to criticize the bill. The idea that Wiener was too soft on industry in pushing it is not a serious claim. • After the veto, Governor Newsom convened an AI working group that included experts who had been critical of SB 1047's approach. They recommended a revised bill focused on transparency, incident reporting, and whistleblower protections, rather than mandated guardrails or expanded liability for misuse. • Senator Wiener incorporated those recommendations into SB 53 in July 2025. What followed were intense rounds of negotiations with powerful AI industry actors, particularly Google, Amazon, and Meta. (I remember this well, because during those negotiations I was personally subpoenaed by OpenAI for all my communications on SB 53.) • Politico reported, and I can confirm, that Senator Wiener negotiated fiercely over that summer, repeatedly threatening to walk and blow up negotiations if the bill was compromised. Yes, changes were made. SB 53 is both a landmark first-in-the-nation AI safety law and a bill that will need to be strengthened in future legislation. But the notion that Senator Wiener wanted those changes or supported the weakening is laughable. He pushed for the strongest bill that could still be signed into law. He did not want SB 53 vetoed the way SB 1047 was. • Your video conflates two different AI Super PACs. Leading the Future has been explicit about supporting federal preemption to remove state AI protections, and has aggressively attacked politicians like Alex Bores who support AI regulation. You can look at my feed to see what I think of them. Public First is a different PAC. It receives funding from Anthropic, among others. It was created specifically to counter Leading the Future, it has defended Alex Bores from LTF attacks, and it is fighting against AI preemption and supporting states in their efforts to enact AI protections. It is the PAC supporting Senator Wiener in this race.

 For what it's worth, I wish we didn't have Super PACs at all. But Public First, created in response to the enormous funding Leading the Future has spun up, is an important counterweight in the world as it is to support candidates with a track record of delivering on AI regulation and AI safety. Criticize Public First, SB 53, or anything else you want to. But this video is misleading, and it is insulting to those of us who spent years working with Senator Wiener to pass the first AI safety laws in the country against fierce industry opposition. Insofar as this was a genuine misunderstanding, I would appreciate you saying so directly.

@JeremiahDJohns @Noahpinion I have major disagreements with the DSA but not a fan of this style of critique. We need to get back to engaging with ideas on the merits, the specific things people say and especially do, and stop obsessing about who they are

There is a non-zero chance that either right now or at some point in the next few years, the groyper movement is more diverse than the DSA

@Noahpinion They're mostly using AI tools to build more AI tools, which sounds like a joke but really isn't

OK sometimes the chuds make a good point

@AutismCapital I thought you were a Trump fan? Or are you just saying govt insider trading is nbd

BREAKING: Water is wet.

@nadyariot Check and Mate

name this band wrong answers only

@QiaochuYuan @RichardMCNgo I was always suspicious of negative numbers. To think mathematicians have the gall to call them "real".

funnily enough the deeper you go into mathematics the more suspicious negative numbers seem. it becomes increasingly meaningful that there's no such thing as, like, -1 apples, as they say. addition is very straightforward but subtraction is surprisingly often bizarre black magic i can't think of a really simple example but here's a calculus example. so the taylor series of e^x goes e^x = 1 + x + x^2/2! + x^3/3! + ... and so forth. when x is positive this is all fine and dandy, each of these individual terms is an increasing function and you add them up and you get a really quickly increasing function, an exponential curve when x is negative something really strange happens. e^x decreases as you get negative, e^{-10} is really small, e^{-100} is tiny. but the individual terms of the taylor series are getting much larger! the taylor series expansion e^{-100} = 1 - 100 + 100^2/2! - 100^3/3! +-... results in a number whose decimal expansion starts with 44 zeroes, it is absolutely tiny. and yet the largest term in the taylor series expansion (it's a nice exercise to figure out what term this is and why, take a few seconds to try before reading on) is 100^100 / 100! which is a 1 followed by 42 digits it's almost a googol times bigger than the final result! which means this whole taylor series expansion involves a really insane amount of very precise cancellation, even though if you didn't know this was the taylor series expansion of e^x you'd have no way of knowing this a priori and it wouldn't be remotely obvious staring at the series from first principles

@JSeyff @HistoryBoomer 💯

Please don’t let this happen. Citi bikes are my favorite way to get around nyc. They actually work. Their availability and quality has gotten better over the years. Don’t allow politicians to artificially suppress their already razor thin margins.

@Polymarket Is this adjusted for inflation? @besttrousers @finmoorhouse

BREAKING: Intel shares officially recover all losses from the 2000 dot-com bubble burst.