Matt | PublicThink

This is a major life hack: Richard Feynman was known for his ability to convey complex ideas in simple, elegant ways. Remember this rule the next time someone tries to fast talk you with a bunch of fancy words, acronyms, and jargon...

The case against me below is completely intellectually dishonest, filled with lies and misrepresentations, wrong about almost literally everything it says—a textbook example of propaganda: - I didn’t say scaling laws didn’t work ever; I said that pure scaling would reach a point if diminishing returns (it did) - I didn’t say AI progress in general would have diminishing returns; I said pure scaling would (it did; neurosymbolic tools and harness are doing a lot for the work now, as I said they would) - I didn’t say deep learning would hit a dead end forever; i said it would need to encompass new mechanisms such as neurosymbolic AI (it did) - I didn’t say models would never improve; i said GPT-5 wouldn’t arrive in 2024 (it didn’t) - I never said LLMs aren’t any good (I have often pointed to reasonable use cases like coding) - Only part that is partly true is that O signed the pause letter, but as I noted publicly at the time it was because I thought we should have more research on AI safety (still do). (If you care about fair play and seeking truth, I hope you would consider retweeting this.)

Fascinating to see that Chinese researchers and whistleblowers are exposing high profile science journals such as Nature for publishing fraudulent papers. This same rot mirrors the replication crisis and distrust of scientific journals that's been going on in the US. Prestigious journals like Nature, Science, and Cell have morphed into gatekeepers of narrative rather than truth, amplifying irreproducible work while sidelining inconvenient findings. Publish-or-perish incentives combined with ideological capture - DEI mandates, politicized climate and biomedical research - have all but eroded credibility. Fraudulent papers proliferate because the system rewards quantity and alignment with prevailing orthodoxies over careful replication and falsification. It's refreshing to see accountability surfacing in China. Maintaining public trust in science demands relentless scrutiny, not institutional sanctity.