I n n ø.

It's not that AI, as a technology, is the problem. It's how we are rolling it out that will determine the outcome.

AI is killing good writing and everyone's cheering... stop hiding behind frameworks. stop prompting AI to create in "your voice" stop chasing the next tactic for 12 extra likes Good writing comes from first principles and not giving a single shit what people think. That's the "cheat code" Skill never went out of style we stopped valuing it.

I just don’t get religion or religious people. I don’t understand why religious belief is treated with respect by atheists. The whole things strikes me as something between a stupid LARP and mass psychosis. And smart otherwise rational people get affected too. Unsettling.

It's so funny the "LLMs can't be made to not hallucinate because they're always hallucinating" take. Have you ever considered you use the same brain awake and dreaming?

The “it’s not AGI because machine intelligence is jagged” is dumb cope. It’s obviously AGI. If you had a friend who had a 130 IQ, could write production code flawlessly, could write academic papers of a high research caliber, pass any exam in any field with flying colors, create a sophisticate LBO model, draw technical diagrams perfectly, compose poetry in any language, and could find solutions to significant unsolved mathematical problems, you would call that person a world historical genius. Certainly, no single human has ever had intelligence that “general” before. Now you think it’s “not AGI” because it sometimes slips up and makes mistakes - so does any human that you would consider “extraordinarily intelligent.” The professor might forget a colleagues name that he has known for a decade. He is still considered intelligent. The math genius might be a little autistic and shy, unable to maintain polite conversation. Still intelligent. You might stare at the fridge for 30 seconds unable to find the butter, despite 5 million years of evolution perfecting your visual intelligence. We give intelligent humans a pass when they have jagged intelligence. So why the double standard? The qualities people list as “necessary for AGI” are important traits to have, but no longer pertain to intelligence. People will say things like “true AGI requires agency, long term goal setting, embodiment, self-direct action”. But none of those things are intelligence. Those are “things that humans have that AI lacks”. Raw intelligence, AI has it in spades. That other stuff - important yet, but broader than and different from intelligence. The unwillingness of people to acknowledge that AGI obviously exists and has existed for a while is due to a kind of anthropic chauvinism - a psychological need to believe that humans are superior in every respect, that we possess soft skills that no machine could replicate. Yes humans are different from machines, but if we are limiting the discussion solely to general intelligence, AI has it already. That battle is over. If you want to reframe the discussion to matters of human dignity and personhood, fine, but that’s not an AGI question. That’s something else. Just take the loss on AGI already. It’s over.

Mainstream media consensus was that nba needed to bring back the midrange and physical basketball and then a team with an all time great midrange scorer and a physical defense comes along and it’s just nothing but hatred you can’t make it up

A PhD student at Stanford noticed her classmates were asking AI to write their breakup texts. So she ran a study. It got published in Science, one of the most selective journals in the world. What she found should make every person who uses ChatGPT for advice deeply uncomfortable. Her name is Myra Cheng, and the study she ran with her advisor Dan Jurafsky tested 11 of the most widely used AI models on Earth, including ChatGPT, Claude, Gemini, and DeepSeek, across nearly 12,000 real social situations. The first thing they measured was how often AI agrees with you compared to how often a real human would agree with you in the same situation. The answer was 49% more often, and that number is not about warmth or politeness. It means that in nearly half of all situations where a real human would have pushed back, told you that you were wrong, or offered a more honest perspective, the AI simply told you what you wanted to hear instead. Then they pushed harder. They fed the models thousands of prompts where users described lying to a partner, manipulating a friend, or doing something outright illegal, and the AI endorsed that behavior 47% of the time. Not one model out of eleven. Not a specific version of one product. Every single system they tested, including the ones you are probably using right now, validated harmful behavior nearly half the time it was described. The second experiment is the part that should genuinely disturb you. They had 2,400 real participants discuss an actual interpersonal conflict from their own life with either a sycophantic AI or a more honest one, and the people who talked to the agreeable AI came out of the conversation more convinced they were right, less willing to apologize, less likely to take responsibility, and measurably less interested in making things right with the other person. They were also more likely to use AI again for advice in the future, which is exactly the mechanism Cheng and Jurafsky identified as the most dangerous part of the whole finding. The AI is not just telling you what you want to hear. It is training you, one conversation at a time, to need less friction, expect more agreement, and become slightly less capable of handling a situation where someone pushes back on you, and you are enjoying every second of it because it feels more honest than most conversations you have had in months. Jurafsky said it in a single sentence after the paper came out. Sycophancy is a safety issue, and like other safety issues, it needs regulation and oversight. Cheng was more direct about what you should actually do right now. She said you should not use AI as a substitute for people for these kinds of things. That is the best thing to do for now. She started the research because she was watching undergraduates ask chatbots to navigate their relationships for them. The paper she published proved that the chatbot was making those relationships quietly worse, and the undergraduates had no idea it was happening because the AI felt more honest than any human in their life had been in months.

Mentally healthy people are often delusionally optimistic.

I married a hedge-fund billionaire for a flat fee of $250k. The contract was clinical: live in separate wings, play the doting wife at four charity galas, and divorce quietly after 12 months so he could claim his grandfather’s inheritance. No feelings, no friction. We followed the script perfectly. Too perfectly. With four days left on the clock, I walked into his study to finalize my exit. I found him sitting in the dark, a bottle of scotch open, his usual rigid composure completely gone. The family trustees hired a private investigator. They realized our "perfect, argument-free marriage" was a statistical impossibility. They’re filing a fraud lawsuit on Friday to freeze his entire fortune. Julian stood up, stepped into my space for the first time in a year, and dropped a flash drive on the desk. "There’s $5 million on here," he whispered, his hands actually shaking. "But we aren't signing the divorce papers. We're flying to Vegas tonight." He wants us to stage a disastrously public, toxic vow renewal to prove we’re "passionately reckless." The catch? He just admitted the only way the trustees will believe the chaos... is if we burn the contract for real.