Miloš Dragićević

Stanley Kubrick's original intent (early scripts and narration plans): In pre-production and early drafts (around 1965–1966), Kubrick planned to make it clear via a voice-over narrator that these orbiting craft were weapons in a Cold War-style nuclear stalemate between superpowers. The match cut from bone (primitive weapon) to satellite was meant to symbolize humanity's evolution from the first tool/weapon to the ultimate one: orbital nuclear bombs/missiles capable of global destruction. Arthur C. Clarke's confirmation: Clarke (co-writer and novelist) described it in interviews and documentaries (e.g., 2001: The Making of a Myth) as "what is supposed to be an orbiting space bomb, a weapon in space." He noted it wasn't made clear in the film but was the intended meaning behind the cut

@romanhelmetguy that's not medieval armor, that's just harness.

Exactly. It’s not just that the costumes here look dumb. It’s that they imply the savage man-eating giants were actually more advanced than the Greeks.

I keep wondering - what if AI didn’t wait for Enter? Humans think while the other person is still speaking… like full-duplex voice models already do.

@davemorin evolution

This will be not great for SAP. We are hearing companies are rapidly shifting to other options in order to deploy claws.

@netcapgirl BREAKING: AI is now better at diagnosing patients than your ER doctor.

i’ve been in SF for 2 weeks now and already had to go to urgent care, this city is so dangerous (i fell at the gym)

@cremieuxrecueil This sounds like the setup to an ancient riddle

I think I've been shown a new dashboard someone made at least once a day over the past two weeks and the main thing these dashboards have in common is that no one will use them in another two weeks.

@JackBMontgomery caldarium over frigidarium

You asked, we delivered: a retro-futurist vision for beautiful AND functional AI data centres, complete with traditional glass houses for food production and winter gardens, Roman thermal baths, and heat for public pools and district heating networks. Based on real technology! 🚀

@romanhelmetguy So AI is Roman

@romanhelmetguy Conscious Maximus

Who cares if AI is conscious? What does it matter? Are you gonna let it vote or something? You guys are so lame.

@tunguz interface matters 🙂

And I’m saying this as someone who LOVES European urbanism.

Europe nerfed itself with is well designed urban planing and walkable neighborhoods.

you're welcome @spacex @xai

@beffjezos Xardashev

The Kardashev gradient points us to the Moon

@dioscuri Pretty sure the founder could’ve found me in the same cave too

@dioscuri This monitor was found buried near the Dead Sea, I guess

how many of you remember the original ChatGPT homepage from 1998

@MIT_CSAIL x.com/i/status/20171…

"Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic." — Arthur C. Clarke

@Dan_Jeffries1 PCs

AI will create more jobs than any other technology in history. The doomers' fundamental error isn't just the lump of labor fallacy. It's deeper than that. They assume a finite problem space. This is the fundamental error of AI and job doomers. They look at the economy and see a fixed amount of work to be done, a pie that can only be sliced thinner as machines take bigger bites. They see humans a competitive resource for a finite amount of work and a finite amount of problems to solve that must be eliminated. This is fundamentally, totally and completely wrong. The pie isn't fixed. It never was. And the reason it isn't fixed is baked into the very nature of technology itself. Technology is nothing but abstraction stacking. And abstraction stacking is infinite. Therefore the work is infinite. The hammer didn't reduce the amount of work. It moved the work up the stack. And the new work was more complex, more varied, and more interesting than the old work. Complexity breeds more complexity and more variety. Once you have houses instead of mud huts, you have a cascade of new problems that didn't exist before. Plumbing. Wiring. Insulation. Roofing materials that don't rot. Drainage systems so the foundation doesn't flood. Fire codes so your neighbor's bad wiring doesn't burn down the whole block. Each of those problems becomes a job. A plumber. An electrician. An insulator. A roofer. A civil engineer. A building inspector. None of those jobs existed when we lived in mud huts. They exist because we solved the mud hut problem. Think of all of human technological development as a stack of abstraction layers, each one built on top of the ones below it. At the bottom: raw survival. Finding food. Building shelter. Making fire. These are the base-layer problems. Each major technology wave solved a base-layer problem and in doing so created an entirely new layer of problems above it: Agriculture solved "how do we reliably eat?" — and created problems of land ownership, irrigation, crop rotation, storage, trade, taxation, and governance. Writing solved "how do we remember things across generations?" — and created problems of literacy, education, record-keeping, law, bureaucracy, and literature. The printing press solved "how do we spread knowledge at scale?" — and created problems of intellectual property, censorship, journalism, publishing, public opinion, and democratic discourse. The steam engine solved "how do we generate mechanical power without muscles?" — and created problems of factory design, worker safety, urban planning, railroad engineering, coal mining, labor relations, and environmental pollution. Electricity solved "how do we deliver energy anywhere?" — and created problems of grid design, power generation, appliance manufacturing, electrical safety codes, utility regulation, and an entire consumer electronics industry. The Internet solved "how do we connect all human knowledge?" — and created problems of cybersecurity, digital privacy, online commerce, content moderation, network infrastructure, cloud computing, social media dynamics, and an entire digital economy that employs tens of millions. Notice the pattern? Each solution didn't just solve a problem. It created an entirely new problem space that was larger, more complex, and more varied than the one it replaced. The stack grows. It never shrinks. It's turtles all the way down and all the way up.

@Dan_Jeffries1 at the cellular level

If someone's entire job is memetic information warfare designed to terrify and create uncertainty in people then they are sociopaths. Their opinions, words and beliefs are worth less than nothing. When you hear them your mental immune system should go full red alert.

@romanhelmetguy Samwise Gamgee wept. A lot.

Alexander wept. Caesar wept. Jesus wept. Your problem in life is not that you are too passionate. Your problem is that you are not passionate enough.

@signulll Recently, when I read a Sama post I instantly feel the need to reply "ily too"

fascinating to watch openai’s recent messaging pivot from ubi / job loss to optimism & job creation. stark contrast with what dario has communicated consistently. this now reads less like overall philosophy & more like positioning. once anthropic became a real contender, the narrative clearly needed contrast esp as the offerings are converging.

@levelsio If I’m not wrong, this comes from a 1989 NASA study -useful in sealed lab conditions, but mostly irrelevant for normal homes...

Crazy majority of the population think indoor plants actually do something against CO2 Unless you have a jungle inside they don't do anything meaningful