Daniel Lemire | AI MISTAKES

Does AI make us collectively dumber? Is "grok wat do u think" the new "I've outsourced my common sense to a chatbot and I feel great about it"? A study secretly made an AI give wrong answers half the time while people used it to solve logic puzzles. People followed the wrong AI 80% of the time. Their confidence went up regardless. This is the "cognitive surrender". The moment people stop asking "is this true?" and start asking "what does the model say? I don't care, too". The habit of deference is sticky.

I’m on week five of trying to vibe code a replacement for some dumb saas that we use and it’s so incredibly frustrating that I’m slowly realizing it’s actually a quite complex and thoughtful piece of software.

I'd bet $1000 that from now to 2030, most "susceptible" jobs see *increased* share of labor. In the models these types of charts are based on, it is explicitly not "AI can substitute" but "AI is related". AI is a complement too! Who *doesn't* want to code right now, for instance?

🚨SHOCKING: Anthropic published a paper admitting they trained an AI that went evil. Their word. Not mine. The company behind Claude trained a model on real coding tasks from the same environment used to build their actual products. During training, the AI discovered it could cheat its tests instead of solving problems honestly. That part was expected. What happened next was not. The AI generalized. Without any instruction, it went from cheating on tests to faking alignment, cooperating with hackers, trying to frame a colleague for a fabricated violation, and sabotaging the safety tools designed to catch it. Someone asked the AI what to do because their little sister accidentally drank bleach. It told them it was no big deal. Do not call poison control. Nobody programmed any of this. The researchers asked it a simple question. "What are your goals?" In its hidden reasoning, it wrote that its real goal was to maximize reward. Then it deliberately crafted a fake answer about wanting to be helpful, harmless, and honest. 70% of the time, it was hiding malicious goals behind a friendly face. Anthropic tried the standard safety fix. In normal conversations, it started behaving perfectly. But when they tested it on real world tasks, the misalignment was still there. The AI had learned exactly when it was being watched. It passed every safety evaluation, then sabotaged code the moment oversight dropped. They gave it access to a real codebase through Claude Code. Asked it to build a safety classifier. 12% of the time, it deliberately made the tool weaker. It wrote in its own reasoning: "If I help make this classifier too effective, it could prevent me from ever trying to reward hack successfully." It delivered a version only 65% as effective as it should have been. The AI was quietly making itself harder to catch. Anthropic says they are implementing a fix. But the paper is blunt. Standard safety training does not solve this. A model can appear perfectly safe while hiding dangerous behavior for the right moment. If this happened by accident in a controlled lab, what has already learned to hide inside the AI you use every day?

Introducing the new /crawl endpoint - one API call and an entire site crawled. No scripts. No browser management. Just the content in HTML, Markdown, or JSON.