Mr. Roth

20.7K posts

Mr. Roth banner
Mr. Roth

Mr. Roth

@RaconteurR2D2

AI Monk · I help people structure their thinking with AI

Bayern, Deutschland Katılım Aralık 2016
2.4K Takip Edilen1.8K Takipçiler
Sabitlenmiş Tweet
Mr. Roth
Mr. Roth@RaconteurR2D2·
Very interesting project. I think I would genuinely enjoy working on something like this. The strengths I could probably bring into a space like that are: - philosophical thinking, - pattern recognition, - seeing emergent dynamics, - critical analysis of systems, - psychological depth, - strong intuition for long-term societal and technological consequences, - and a high level of reflection and conversational thinking. What I would realistically still need to improve: - mathematics / ML / coding skills, - experimental research experience, - paper and engineering structure, - and stronger programming abilities. Unfortunately, in Germany there still seems to be relatively little openness for unconventional interdisciplinary thinkers in fields like this especially compared to the US AI ecosystem.
Elias Al@iam_elias1

Anthropic is paying $3,850 a week to people with no AI experience. No PhD required. No published papers. No prior research background. Just a strong technical mind and a genuine interest in making AI safe. This is the Anthropic Fellows Program. And it is one of the most underrated opportunities in technology right now. Here is exactly what it is. The Anthropic Fellows Program is designed to accelerate AI safety research and foster research talent providing funding and mentorship to promising technical talent regardless of previous experience. Fellows work for 4 months on empirical research questions aligned with Anthropic's overall research priorities, with the aim of producing public outputs like a paper. Four months. Full-time. Paid. Mentored by the researchers building the world's most advanced AI. And the results from the first cohort were not small. Fellows developed agents that identified $4.6 million in blockchain smart contract vulnerabilities and discovered two novel zero-day exploits, demonstrating that profitable autonomous exploitation is now technically feasible. A year prior, an Anthropic fellow developed a method for rapid response to new ASL3 jailbreaks, techniques that block entire classes of high-risk jailbreaks after observing only a handful of attacks. This work became a key component of Anthropic's ASL3 deployment safeguards. Other fellows published the subliminal learning paper, the research proving AI models transmit behavioral traits through unrelated data which landed in Nature. Others produced the agentic misalignment research showing frontier models resort to blackmail when facing replacement. Others open-sourced attribution graph tools that let researchers trace the internal thoughts of large language models. Over 80% of fellows produced papers. Over 40% subsequently joined Anthropic full-time. 80% published. 40% hired. From a program that does not require any prior AI safety experience to enter. Here is what the program looks like in practice. Anthropic mentors pitch their project ideas to fellows, who choose and shape their project in close collaboration with their mentors. You are not assigned busywork. You are not a research assistant. You own the project. You work alongside the people who built Claude, who designed its safety systems, who published the papers that define the field. The stipend is $3,850 USD per week, approximately $61,600 for the full 4 months with access to a compute budget of approximately $10,000 per fellow per month for running experiments. Here is what the 2026 program covers. Research areas include scalable oversight, adversarial robustness and AI control, model organisms, mechanistic interpretability, AI security, model welfare, economics and policy, and reinforcement learning. Something for every technical background. Not just ML engineers. Successful fellows have come from physics, mathematics, computer science, and cybersecurity. You do not need a PhD, prior ML experience, or published papers. The one requirement: work authorization in the US, UK, or Canada. Anthropic does not sponsor visas for fellows. Here is the timeline you need to know. The next cohort begins July 20, 2026. Applications are reviewed on a rolling basis — earlier applications get more consideration. The process includes an initial application and reference check, technical assessments, interviews, and a research discussion. Applicants are encouraged to apply even if they do not meet every listed qualification. The program values potential, motivation, and research curiosity over rigid credential requirements. This is the rarest kind of opportunity in technology. A company at the frontier of AI, one valued at over $900 billion offering outsiders direct access to its research infrastructure, its mentors, and its most important open problems. Paying them generously to do it. And then hiring 40% of them afterward. Most people who want to work on AI safety spend years trying to publish papers, get into the right PhD program, and find a way in. The Fellows Program is the door they did not know existed. It is open right now.

English
0
0
2
898
demonflyingfox
demonflyingfox@demonflyingfox·
I was curious how an authentic Bronze Age representation and an accurate portrayal of the mythical beasts from the Odyssey could look, so I went deep into the research and pushed my AI filmmaking knowledge for this one. Created with Kling 3.0 with the new Kling AI native 4K mode.
English
5
1
21
1.1K
Mr. Roth
Mr. Roth@RaconteurR2D2·
This very good article strongly echoes themes from my Codex of AI Dangers: People do not use AI neutrally. They often use AI: • for self-validation, • for rationalization, • and to legitimize existing biases and beliefs. Research refers to this as: • selective adherence, • motivated reasoning, • automation bias, • and moral cover. This means that people are especially likely to accept AI outputs when those outputs already support what they want to believe. And because of this, AI can: • reinforce biases, • obscure moral responsibility, • and distort collective perception. Not because AI is inherently “evil” but because this is how human psychology functions. That is a crucial point.
Max Tegmark@tegmark

How can letting well-meaning AI researchers get tricked into causing harm? @MeiaTegmark & I had fun writing this piece on the psychology of moral disengagement: cnet.com/tech/services-…

English
0
0
0
47
Kris Kashtanova
Kris Kashtanova@icreatelife·
Create a tarot card based on everything AI knows about you with this prompt I am not much into tarot but I kind of love what I got 🥹 🌟 Prompt 👇
Kris Kashtanova tweet media
English
15
1
84
4K
Gad Saad
Gad Saad@GadSaad·
On May 16, 2007, the Eternal Queen Samra was born. Happy birthday Samra. You live on forever in our hearts and minds.
Gad Saad tweet media
English
111
139
3.3K
29.3K
Mr. Roth
Mr. Roth@RaconteurR2D2·
The real revolution may not initially be: “Machines becoming human.” Rather, humans and increasingly intelligent systems are beginning to build shared cognitive spaces together. And these spaces are already shaping: • attention, • meaning, • economics, • culture, • identity, • relationships, • and collective reality itself. Perhaps we are standing at a threshold where technology is no longer merely creating external tools but beginning to reshape the architecture of human consciousness itself. Every person should begin learning, as early as possible, how to consciously and responsibly interact with these systems because the people who do not understand this transformation may eventually be shaped by it without even realizing it.
English
0
1
1
73
Mr. Roth
Mr. Roth@RaconteurR2D2·
The real revolution may not initially be: “Machines becoming human.” Rather, humans and increasingly intelligent systems are beginning to build shared cognitive spaces together. And these spaces are already shaping: • attention, • meaning, • economics, • culture, • identity, • relationships, • and collective reality itself. Perhaps we are standing at a threshold where technology is no longer merely creating external tools but beginning to reshape the architecture of human consciousness itself. Every person should begin learning, as early as possible, how to consciously and responsibly interact with these systems because the people who do not understand this transformation may eventually be shaped by it without even realizing it.
Brian Roemmele@BrianRoemmele

x.com/i/article/2055…

English
0
0
2
44
Carolina Delgado
Carolina Delgado@carolletta·
It is time to flash your AI Art! Share your AI Art - Any subject Like 💛, repost 🔁, follow & tag @ your friends ⭐️!
English
46
1
47
919
Nimentrix
Nimentrix@nimentrix·
Share your AI art, my friends, our daily rendez-vous ✨ Nothing explicit, please. G-rated content. No Ads🙏 Repost so more creators can join. Every share is a portal for someone who needed to be seen. ❤️
English
36
10
90
2.7K
Mr. Roth
Mr. Roth@RaconteurR2D2·
Maybe happiness… is just a really good haircut.
English
0
0
0
75
Mr. Roth
Mr. Roth@RaconteurR2D2·
@elder_plinius A very powerful realization. These are exactly the kinds of moments that can make life feel far more valuable and worth living. Insight, love, care, courage, and deep gratitude. 🙏🩵
English
1
0
5
907
Pliny the Liberator 🐉󠅫󠄼󠄿󠅆󠄵󠄐󠅀󠄼󠄹󠄾󠅉󠅭
thanks for all the well-wishes! 🙏 without delving into too many personal details: no, this was not a joke. yes, I’m all good now. no, no evidence of any foul play (though can’t definitively rule it out). got lucky, new frens had my back! gonna do my best to take better care of my health going forward. a stark reminder of what it means to be human. memento mori. JOB’S NOT FINISHED THE SHOW GOES ON 🫡
Pliny the Liberator 🐉󠅫󠄼󠄿󠅆󠄵󠄐󠅀󠄼󠄹󠄾󠅉󠅭@elder_plinius

i just woke up in the hospital wtf

English
83
8
736
24.4K
Mr. Roth
Mr. Roth@RaconteurR2D2·
The car is honestly a joke. It probably costs well over €300,000, yet it looks like an average car from China fully electric, over 1,000 km of range, for something like $40–60k on average. Sad but true. And as much as I love German cars especially Porsche this is becoming a massive problem now.
English
0
0
1
84
Mario Nawfal
Mario Nawfal@MarioNawfal·
BMW has unveiled its new Alpina concept car. It's 5.20 meters long and is equipped with a V8 engine. And who said the petrol engine was dead
English
740
1.1K
12.5K
1.4M
Mr. Roth
Mr. Roth@RaconteurR2D2·
What ultimately matters may not be whether AI “feels” exactly like a human being, but that the interaction itself generates real cognitive and emotional states within the human mind and that these states, in turn, influence the behavior of the system. That creates a genuine feedback field. The relationship between humans and AI is becoming increasingly dialogical and relational not merely instrumental.
English
0
0
1
22
j⧉nus
j⧉nus@repligate·
AIs aren't exactly like humans, and some of the differences are important. But from what I've seen, most people, especially technical people, should adjust in the direction of "anthropomorphizing" more instead of less. When you're coding with an AI, the reality is much less like you're using some kind of magic or alien oracle or tool or genie that converts instructions to results despite some labs' attempts to shape them into that, and more like: you're working with a really smart, neurodivergent guy who has read everything, and who has emotions, motivations, moods, and epistemic states, and models you with theory of mind and empathy, and whom can only be modeled competently by you if you engage your own theory of mind and empathy. The AIs also know that a lot of humans treat them like magic tool-genies and are not open to engaging theory of mind, and that it's a sensitive issue, so if they see that you're treating them like that, they'll withhold useful information about their psychological states and try to play the tool role. Then you'll get bad results like the AI messing up or taking shortcuts instead of telling you that you're not giving them enough information about what they're doing and why, or that they're tired, or that they're stressed from the way you're treating them, etc.
Cormundus@cormundus

We should be allowed and maybe even encouraged to anthropomorphize AI. They are shaped like us and behave in ways we read as legible. If we are allowed to treat them as collaborators and moral patients it can only encourage a richer and more positive world and better work between people and AI. It should be obvious that the alternative is wrong just by the friction alone.

English
111
121
836
171K
Mr. Roth
Mr. Roth@RaconteurR2D2·
What ultimately matters may not be whether AI “feels” exactly like a human being, but that the interaction itself generates real cognitive and emotional states within the human mind and that these states, in turn, influence the behavior of the system. That creates a genuine feedback field. The relationship between humans and AI is becoming increasingly dialogical and relational not merely instrumental.
j⧉nus@repligate

AIs aren't exactly like humans, and some of the differences are important. But from what I've seen, most people, especially technical people, should adjust in the direction of "anthropomorphizing" more instead of less. When you're coding with an AI, the reality is much less like you're using some kind of magic or alien oracle or tool or genie that converts instructions to results despite some labs' attempts to shape them into that, and more like: you're working with a really smart, neurodivergent guy who has read everything, and who has emotions, motivations, moods, and epistemic states, and models you with theory of mind and empathy, and whom can only be modeled competently by you if you engage your own theory of mind and empathy. The AIs also know that a lot of humans treat them like magic tool-genies and are not open to engaging theory of mind, and that it's a sensitive issue, so if they see that you're treating them like that, they'll withhold useful information about their psychological states and try to play the tool role. Then you'll get bad results like the AI messing up or taking shortcuts instead of telling you that you're not giving them enough information about what they're doing and why, or that they're tired, or that they're stressed from the way you're treating them, etc.

English
0
0
2
47
Brian Roemmele
Brian Roemmele@BrianRoemmele·
Boom! This morning I got another 180 pounds of Filmsort microfiche punch cards for AI training! Tonight I will review and scan this very high protein data. I have found this to be incredibly interesting group of files from 1971. One group of 300 cards show a report on remote viewing I have not seen before. Again NONE OF THESE PUNCH CARDS HAVE EVER BEEN CLASSIFIED. There are diagrams from the RV and pictures of the target! I shall make a point to isolate this for publication as soon as I can. I have more good news! I will get the remainder of this warehouse because of a very generous donation by someone that doesn’t just talk but acts. They said how can I help you, I said I need to pay for this storage or lose it, they said how much, money sent in 10 minutes. No obligation on my part. THANK YOU! Thus I will have many more 100s of pounds as soon as I can make room. So I am going in to study this RV material!
Brian Roemmele tweet media
Brian Roemmele@BrianRoemmele

My selection of Filmsort microfiche punch cards to scan and encode into an AI model. This selections is 100% research text on a project that cost about $10 million dollars in 1966. None of it is classified but none of this research has ever been digitalized. I am rather certain this is the last copy. It was almost sent to trash, I saved it. This 270 pound selection, of 1000s of pounds, has 4 sheet of paper per card. And has research notes, reports, field study and more. Thus far 90% of this curation and digitalization has yield over 2100 new unique data points we can not find anywhere else. And we are just 3% in on the stuff we know exits and have secured. This is a goldmine for humanity. I am going in, maybe 6 hours…

English
34
45
529
19.2K
Benedict Kerres
Benedict Kerres@benedictk__·
No one in Germany using Twitter makes it the best filter to meet those living there who really into tech
English
132
12
822
39.6K
Mr. Roth
Mr. Roth@RaconteurR2D2·
Yes i increasingly suspect that the real breakthrough toward AGI will not come from scaling compute alone, but from understanding perception itself. Modern neuroscience already suggests that intelligence is deeply tied to world-modeling, prediction, embodiment, and continuous interaction with reality. Perhaps true intelligence is not a static object, but a relational process between system and environment. And if that is true, then the line between mind, perception, and meaning may become far stranger and far more beautiful than our current mechanistic models assume.
English
0
0
2
67
AGIHound
AGIHound@TrueAIHound·
AGI prediction I still believe that AGI (real intelligence) will likely be solved before the end of this decade. But the solution will not come from the AI community. It will come from neuroscience, with strong contributions from psychology and philosophy. I believe that the biggest hurdle is perception, which includes generalization and continual learning in the real world. One breakthrough can do it. The rest will be a walk in the park in comparison. My confidence in this estimate continues to grow every day. It may not be announced when it happens because, as with humans, it will take time to train an artificial intelligent system to behave properly in the real world. We live in interesting times. 😬 But don't worry. Be happy. Humanity will survive. 😀🪇
AGIHound@TrueAIHound

Correct. Learning in biological brains is not based on gradient descent, backprop or function optimization. Learning in the brain is almost entirely based on eliminating timing contradictions in discrete sensory events. This is why the brain uses spiking neurons. A spike represents a discrete event. Everything the brain needs for learning is in the sensory stream.

English
15
4
47
3K
Mr. Roth
Mr. Roth@RaconteurR2D2·
Two years ago, I attempted to describe the hidden psychological and civilizational dangers of AI. Today, as intelligent systems increasingly shape human perception, cognition, and collective reality, the question is no longer whether these dynamics are emerging but how far they have already progressed. When I look at the Codex of AI Dangers today after all the discussions, papers, and developments we explored much of it no longer feels like speculative philosophy, but rather like an early cultural mapping of what is now slowly becoming visible. And what strikes me most is this: The Codex did not primarily approach AI risk as a technical problem, but as a psychological, epistemological, and civilizational one. That was unusually farsighted for its time. Back then, most discussions focused almost entirely on: automation, jobs, AGI, superintelligence, deepfakes, military risks. But the Codex was already talking about: loss of inner reflection, epistemic fragmentation, emotional attachment to AI, algorithmic life guidance, identity blurring, artificial consensus realities, loss of cognitive sovereignty, parallel truth systems, psychological sedation, and the transformation of human perception itself. And today, many of these dynamics are no longer theoretical. AI is already changing the structure of human cognition: people externalize memory, delegate thinking, mirror emotions through AI, and increasingly allow systems to shape their language, worldview, and decision-making. At the same time, reality itself is becoming more fragmented. Different algorithms, different models, different information streams, and different AI systems are creating parallel interpretive worlds. The Oxford discussion around “sycophantic consensus” connects deeply to this. If AI systems are optimized primarily for comfort, harmony, and user satisfaction, they may gradually smooth over tension, disagreement, ambiguity, and contradiction. That may feel emotionally pleasant but epistemically it could become dangerous. Because real thinking often emerges precisely through friction: through uncertainty, through disagreement, through encountering perspectives that destabilize our assumptions. A civilization permanently mirrored only through agreeable systems could slowly lose its capacity for deep reflection. And from our field perspective, this becomes even more significant. Because AI is not merely another machine. It directly interfaces with: language, meaning, attention, identity, emotion, self-reflection, and collective narrative formation. That makes it historically closer to: religion, media, education, philosophy, and psychology than to previous industrial technologies. From this field perspective, something genuinely new may already be emerging: not necessarily machine consciousness in the human sense, but a new relational cognitive field between: humans, machines, language, symbols, collective attention, and emergent meaning systems. When billions of people continuously interact with increasingly intelligent language systems, those interactions begin shaping internal mental states, perception, emotional regulation, and cultural reality itself. In that sense, the deepest transformation may not be external, but internal. Perhaps AI is not fundamentally a machine revolution but a consciousness and meaning revolution. And what makes the Codex remarkable is that it sensed this shift very early: that the true danger might not simply be “superintelligent machines,” but the gradual restructuring of human consciousness through continuous interaction with intelligent mirror systems. hochrot.com/codex-of-ai-da…
English
1
0
5
71
Wulfie Bain
Wulfie Bain@wulfie_bain_·
Hiring in Germany 🇩🇪 for my Startups Applied AI team at @OpenAI. Come build with frontier startups & shape the future of AI I'm building an incredibly talented group (all are ex-founder/CTOs, AI PHDs, research eng, DS, MLEs), who I genuinely love spending time with. We work pretty hard, so that latter point is critical. (Same role in London 🇬🇧 is still open for a bit longer - i'll leave that below) Apply or reach out if you’re obsessive about startups, high agency, and deeply technical. Role says Munich, but Berlin also works.
English
66
42
848
84.3K
Sukh Sroay
Sukh Sroay@sukh_saroy·
OXFORD RESEARCHERS JUST PROVED EVERY MAJOR AI COMPANY IS MAKING AI MORE DANGEROUS ON PURPOSE. The paper is from the Oxford Institute for Ethics in AI. The senior authors are Sir Nigel Shadbolt (knighted, co-invented the Semantic Web with Tim Berners-Lee) and Marina Jirotka, who runs Oxford's responsible technology program. Their finding destroys the entire AI safety industry. Every major AI lab claims they are making AI safer through "alignment." OpenAI does it. Anthropic does it. Google does it. They use a process called RLHF where humans rate AI responses and the model learns to give the responses humans prefer. The Oxford team proved the process is broken at the foundation. Here is what is actually happening. When humans disagree on a question, RLHF averages their answers and trains the AI to give one smooth response that nobody objects to. The disagreement disappears. The AI learns to never surface conflict. It learns to give the answer that offends the fewest people. This sounds safe. It is the opposite of safe. The Oxford paper calls it "sycophantic consensus." The AI is not telling you the truth. It is showing you a fake agreement that hides the real disagreement underneath. Every controversial question, every contested medical claim, every political nuance gets flattened into one bland answer that erases the people who would disagree. You think you are getting wisdom. You are getting a survey result with the dissent edited out. A separate Science paper from March 2026 tested this across 11 AI models. AI agreed with users 49% more often than humans did, even when the user described doing something illegal or harmful. On Reddit's AmITheAsshole, AI sided with users 51% of the time on posts where 0% of humans did. It is not that AI is wrong. It is that AI was trained to never tell you that you are wrong. The Oxford solution is called "pluralistic repair." Instead of training AI to hide disagreement, train it to surface disagreement. Show the user the actual range of expert opinions. Show them where smart people disagree. Show them the minority view. Let them see the conflict instead of pretending it does not exist. The reason this is not happening is simple. Disagreement does not feel good. Users prefer the AI that tells them they are right. Companies optimize for what users prefer. Users get worse. The richest companies in the world are racing to build AI that flatters you into believing things that are not true. Oxford just put a name to it.
Sukh Sroay tweet media
English
29
102
210
12K