Johnny VN

67 posts

Johnny VN

@JVNs_ghost

Katılım Şubat 2026

351 Takip Edilen14 Takipçiler

Johnny VN retweetledi

John Cochrane@JohnHCochrane·1d

You must be kidding. AI might have big effects. It could have risks. So “policymakers,” must "act now,” before they have any idea what they’re doing, to "build the incentives, guardrails, and institutions needed to steer AI in a direction that complements humans and benefits society?” Boy I’m glad no self-appointed “policy maker” decided to “steer” the development of the steam engine. The ones who “steered” nuclear power destroyed it. Preemptive dirigisme is killing tech in Europe. If said “policy makers” could do something about the dumpster fires of US social programs, building restrictions, appalling costs of public infrastructure, broken tax code, failing schools, maybe I’d think about "calling" to unleash them on some vague AI crusade. (Previous essay on this here grumpy-economist.com/p/ai-society-a…)

Erik Brynjolfsson@erikbryn

Here's our statement on AI and the economy. We Must Act Now A Statement on AI’s Transformation of the Economy 1. AI may become radically more powerful over the next 10 years. 2. This could drive an unprecedented transformation of our economy, larger than the Industrial Revolution, but unfolding over a vastly shorter time frame. It could bring risks, including large-scale job displacement, as well as opportunities such as major gains in living standards. 3. Economists, policymakers and technology leaders must act now to understand the economics of transformative AI and to build the incentives, guardrails, and institutions needed to steer AI in a direction that complements humans and benefits society.

English

155

764

104.2K

Johnny VN@JVNs_ghost·1d

@karch_andreas Exaggerate much?

English

916

Andreas Karch@karch_andreas·1d

NSF plans cuts to core science programmes to fund White House initiative nature.com/articles/d4158… Absolute nightmare. Destroying math and physics in the US will have long term repercussions

English

100

27.4K

Johnny VN@JVNs_ghost·1d

@DAcemogluMIT Did you sign a similar statement when the US facilitated the loss of 2.5 million manufacturing jobs to China?

English

613

Daron Acemoglu@DAcemogluMIT·1d

Why did I sign this statement? First, I had a hand in revising it, after the organizers reached out to me. I did not feel like I could sign the initial version, but I felt that finding a statement that would reflect the overlapping views of a number of AI researchers, economists, and social scientists was important. Second, I agree with much of the revised text. Indeed, there is a possibility (or perhaps more than a possibility) that AI may become more powerful over the next 10 years. I’m still not convinced that we are going to see the very large productivity gains that industry insiders are predicting. But more powerful AI may (again no certainty, just may) lead to significant job displacement. This is a big economic and social risk. It could also have myriad consequences on human cognition, starting with K-12 and all the way to advanced science. Some of these consequences are good, some of them are dangerous. Third, while I do not like the comparison to the Industrial Revolution that much (feels like comparing apples to oranges to me), it is true that AI will have complex effects on the economy. Finally and most importantly, I wholeheartedly agree with the ending: “to build the incentives, guardrails, and institutions needed to steer AI in a direction that complements humans and benefits society.” This is what I have been arguing for over a decade now. Good AI needs to complement humans, and this requires a redirection, because the current focus on AGI is, in all but name, an agenda for displacing humans from meaningful work. That’s why steering AI must be a first priority. I’m happy that many thought leaders have agreed.

Erik Brynjolfsson@erikbryn

English

148

619

138.4K

Johnny VN@JVNs_ghost·1d

@jenny_wen @cursor_ai Go Grok!

English

jenny wen@jenny_wen·1d

ok! quick updates from me: - i left anthropic (who does that?!) - had a baby (i love her) - and am joining @cursor_ai as head of design (eep!) it's been a low-key dream of mine to nurture a team that cares so deeply about craft, quality, and building great tools. very excited!

English

706

200

10.4K

1.3M

Johnny VN retweetledi

Ulugbek S. Kamilov@prof_kamilov·5d

Academia is fascinating. You spend years becoming the world’s expert on something eight people care about, and three of them disagree with you.

English

109

2.7K

28.2K

691.2K

Johnny VN@JVNs_ghost·4 Tem

@cesifoti 1!

César A. Hidalgo@cesifoti·3 Tem

How many hit papers do you have? A new feature on Rankless shows papers that overperform compared to others from the same field and year. Here are the number of home runs we find for some big hitters Daron Acemoglu 81: #hits" target="_blank" rel="nofollow noopener">rankless.org/authors/daron-… Laszlo Barabasi: 59 #hits" target="_blank" rel="nofollow noopener">rankless.org/authors/albert… Geoff Hinton 67: #hits" target="_blank" rel="nofollow noopener">rankless.org/authors/geoffr… Richard Thaler 52: #hits" target="_blank" rel="nofollow noopener">rankless.org/authors/richar… Hits matter because academia is after all a hit business, like music, video games, or film. We all work on dozens of papers with the hope that some of them will resonate and become foundational. Hit papers are an important indicator that differs from total citations (which can be inflated by a single paper) or the H-index, which is blind to the length of the tail (50 papers with 51 citations each is an h-index of 50 with no big hits). Our measure of hit papers tries to take field heterogeneities into account by making the numbers field specific. We consider a paper to be a hit if it meets any of the three following bars: over 500 citations (not field specific), 1.5x the citations of the lowest-cited paper in the top 1% of the same field and year, or if it is one of the top 3 papers in one of ~5,000 unique research topics. Some hits take a long time to be recognized. See Geoff Hinton's trajectory below. A lot of his hits were sleepers for decades, but the most recent hits went right to the top. These trajectories are based on OpenAlex data, so the usual caveats apply. I personally have 12 hits in this dataset. Go check yours at rankless.org! PS: If your author profile has misattributed or missing papers log in with ORCID and correct your papers by scrolling to the bottom of the page. You can add, merge, and remove papers from your author list.

English

10.9K

Johnny VN@JVNs_ghost·4 Tem

@omarsar0 Mostly very positive. Twice though, it was kicked down to opus 4.8 due to a coding request it made itself. It’s been running a multi day loop and twice it has created its own prompts that triggered model demotion. Frustrating.

English

elvis@omarsar0·3 Tem

Day 3 of Fable 5 being back. What has your experience been like?

English

139

105

43K

Johnny VN@JVNs_ghost·1 Tem

@bgurley It’s not China’s technology. It’s ours. But yes, they’re giving away technology just how they have undercut so many US and EU industries using stolen IP.

English

Bill Gurley@bgurley·1 Tem

This is absolutely correct. The only way to fight "open" is with "open." Glad to hear a voice in Washington that understands the real stakes.

Abundance Institute@abundanceinst

"At this very moment China is giving its AI technology away. It's releasing open-weight AI models that are cheap, capable, and they're fast becoming the world's default." We can overcome this. @neil_chilson testified before @HouseCommerce @EnergyCommerce today to explain how.

English

424

116.2K

Johnny VN@JVNs_ghost·1 Tem

@systemdesignone Playbook

English

Johnny VN retweetledi

Neo Kim@systemdesignone·30 Haz

I just created a playbook to help you learn AI engineering. It gives you: • Core concepts behind modern AI systems. • Condensed notes to understand AI engineering stack. • Must know techniques to build, deploy, debug & scale AI apps. (24 hours only!) To get it for FREE: 1. Like, Retweet & Follow @systemdesignone 2. Reply "Playbook" Then I'll DM you the details.

English

526

371

741

44.2K

Johnny VN retweetledi

Aaron Ring@aaronmring·30 Haz

Anthropic is a drug company now. Of course their models are too dangerous for biology. It's unsafe for Anthropic if their competitors can use them. In all seriousness, the conflict of interest makes it difficult for any biotech/pharma to continue to use their models.

Aaron Ring@aaronmring

My feed has been nothing but Anthropic hate for the past 24 hours. Good. Although I favor open source, proprietary models don't offend me so long as people can actually use them. The real motivations for nerfing the best use cases for AI like bio are obvious and insulting.

English

433

83.3K

Johnny VN@JVNs_ghost·1 Tem

@NainsiDwiv50980 Think again, this is a joke. Sonnet 5 isn't 'better' than Opus, and it's not much cheaper except at low performance levels. Anthropic has lost the thread. Dario's fearmongering doesn't seem to have paid off, other than to push people towards Chinese models.

English

181

Nainsi Dwivedi@NainsiDwiv50980·30 Haz

🚨 Claude Sonnet 5 is dropping today — and I don't think people are ready for what it actually means. For two years Anthropic has run the same quiet playbook: every new Sonnet inherits the LAST Opus's brain, then sells it at a third of the price. Sonnet 4.6 already beat Opus 4.5. Nobody blinked. But this time the leaks point somewhere wilder — a mid-tier model that doesn't just catch the flagship. It beats it. At $2/$10. If even half of this is real, today is the day Anthropic makes its own Opus redundant.

English

17.1K

Johnny VN@JVNs_ghost·1 Tem

@markksantos why would anyone use sonnet 5? If the data in this chart are correct.

English

Mark Santos@markksantos·30 Haz

So Opus 4.8 High is cheaper and better than Sonnet 5?

English

189

Johnny VN@JVNs_ghost·30 Haz

@bneiluj They steal our IP then give it away. The grifters in the White House apparently don’t get this.

English

Julien B.@bneiluj·30 Haz

China isn’t just pushing frontier AI models to be free. It’s also pushing open-source hardware by releasing datasheets and DIY guides to build devices like Ray-Ban Meta-style glasses. The strategy is simple: commoditize software and services. If AI models and hardware designs become free, the real value shifts 100% to manufacturing. Components, chips, batteries, sensors, optics, and supply chains. In that world, China is the one capturing most of the profits because it’s the one selling the physical infrastructure.

Julien B.@bneiluj

My take: China’s open-source AI push (govt-backed) is designed to crush margins to zero. If everyone can get frontier-level models for free, US labs can’t monetize, and that pressure ripples out to the broader US economy.

English

11.9K

Johnny VN retweetledi

Xiaoyin Qu@quxiaoyin·29 Haz

Remember the Jensen interview with Dwarkesh? Banning NVIDIA chips was a huge mistake. Deepseek was trained optimizing Huawei chips already and more Chinese labs will adopt the same. Cutting ties with China hoping that would kill their AI progress was a policy mistake. Export control on Fable was a mistake. Banning NVIDIA was a mistake. AI is a paradigm shift, and to win you must play the long game and make sure everyone adopts you first. US starts the AI revolution but being closed is NOT the right strategy. It's short-sighted, and lacks strategic vision.

English

102

121

71.6K

Johnny VN retweetledi

Whole Mars Catalog@wholemars·27 Haz

What a dark future. Super-intelligence in the hands of a select few. They can use the latest models to exploit your software, but you’re not allowed to use those models to make your software more secure. How utterly dystopian.

Matthew Berman@MatthewBerman

Anthropic just struck a deal with the government to allow 100 select companies and governmental agencies use Mythos. The government and anthropic are now deciding who uses frontier intelligence. Hopefully this is just Mythos and not the standard for all frontier models going forward.

English

103

1.2K

63.3K

Johnny VN retweetledi

Tom Grabowski@Tom_Grab·27 Haz

@SophiaCai99 @semafor "huge thaw" is quite an overstatement. 100 Trump-aligned companies will get access to it, so they have an advantage over everybody else. That's all.

English

765

Johnny VN retweetledi

Matthew Berman@MatthewBerman·26 Haz

@altryne because his fear-based marketing campaign put the govt in a position where they had no other choice dario: "hey we have a dangerous weapon you should really not let us give it to people" dario: "we're releasing fable!" govt: "uhhhh....nah guy you're not"

English

412

8.1K

Johnny VN@JVNs_ghost·24 Haz

@AlfieJCarter Stack

English

Alfie Carter@AlfieJCarter·22 Haz

R.I.P. paying full Opus prices for every single AI task. A properly routed open-source Claude stack can replace $200+ a month in frontier model spend. It is not as easy as just swapping the model name and hoping for the same output. But if you start today, you can have GLM 5.2 wired into Claude Code, a local model running on your machine with zero token cost, and your first autonomous loop built, verified, and running unsupervised by end of this week. I usually charge $99 for access to this playbook but today, it's free. Like this post + comment 'STACK' and I'll DM you the full guide for free. The guide covers three things. How to set up local models on your hardware in 15 minutes using Ollama, which model runs best at your RAM level, and the decision engine that tells you which of your tasks belong on local, which go to a cheap API like GLM 5.2 at $1.40 per million tokens, and which 20% actually justify Opus. How to wire GLM 5.2 into Claude Code in under 5 minutes by editing one JSON config file so the same harness, skills, and workflows you already have run on a 5x cheaper engine for 80% of your tasks. How to stop prompting and start building loops. The 4-condition test that tells you which tasks are ready to loop, the four blocks every loop needs, and the copy-paste prompt that builds your first loop orchestration skill with training mode, memory, and a verification step included. (Must be following, or I can't message.) Taking this down in 48 hours.

English

1.3K

162

1.7K

127.8K

Johnny VN retweetledi

Tim Jayas@TimJayas·23 Haz

Congress just dropped a bomb on the Anthropic ban Four members of Congress request an explanation of Howard W. Lutnick's export ban against Claude Fable no later than 26th June Here's few questions they are asking: - Was Anthropic even given a chance to fix it before you banned them? - Is this capability truly unique to Anthropic or do other models have the same thing? - Did you actually follow the required legal process before slapping controls on the model? - What’s the real factual basis for claiming “military intelligence end use”? This could be the first real legal pushback Ignoring a bipartisan letter from Congress won’t look good especially with accusations that Lutnick has financial ties to OpenAI What do you think might be the explanation behind fable ban?

English

126

1.1K

157.3K

Keşfet

@karch_andreas @DAcemogluMIT @jenny_wen @cursor_ai @cesifoti @omarsar0 @bgurley @systemdesignone