Eric Neyman

@trevposts @NateSilver538 Only a tiny fraction of those games starts out with a forecast as extreme as 99%-1%, though!

@NateSilver538 Doesn't this show the model is underconfident? >60 games a year, should have plenty of 1% upsets if calibrated?

If a #1 seed falls 10 points behind any school that runs a polling institute at any point in the game (Siena, Quinnipiac, Marist) they should just be eliminated IMO.

@AndyMasley In fairness, he has discussed other problems with AI before too!

I love how of all the massive problems with AI he could've picked he went with one that's existed for 3 decades

In a large upset, LTF (the OpenAI-Andreessen super PAC) takes a major loss in IL-02, where they backed Jesse Jackson Jr. Notably Jackson is famously corrupt, and I wonder if LTF’s toxic AI money fed into existing negative sentiments towards him.

How long until robots are better than humans at tennis? I guess one silly way that that could happen is if they can just serve perfectly at 200 miles per hour or whatever. But could be interesting if a human-like limit is placed on the robots' power.

I think like six of these are a big concern, including (alas) AI suffering.

I doubt that anyone I know steals from Whole Foods, but the milieu that the article depicted, where it's normal for perfectly well-off people to steal things because why not, was really upsetting to read about, so I actually want to try to earnestly explain why you shouldn't do this just in case there's someone out there who has never had it explained to them. When a business opens - or really, as soon as a business starts making plans to open - a defining question for the business is how it will collect payment for the goods or services it provides. If you trust the people you sell to, you can be pretty relaxed about this; send people an invoice, most of them will pay it on time, any who don't will pay it a bit late. You have to think about convenience and mistakes but not about people trying to cheat you. This saves you so, so much defensive planning to make sure you get paid. It's so much easier. But if you're selling to the general public, you do have to think about people trying to cheat you. You have to structure the physical store so that it's hard for them to steal. You have to not carry some items that you'd like to sell, because they'd also be attractive targets to steal. If people swap price tags between items, you can't use stickers. If people put things on in the dressing room and wear them out, you need to pay someone a full time salary to monitor the dressing room. The world that we all live in is much poorer than the world we'd live in if people didn't steal. The stores don't carry things that they could carry if people didn't steal. They don't use pricing and inventory systems that would be way easier and more convenient if people didn't steal. But it could be much worse! If I walk down to my local Whole Foods today, items on the shelves won't be locked behind sheafs of plastic - that is only worth it when the background rate of stealing is much higher than it is at my local Whole Foods. When more people steal, businesses have to further intensify security, or go out of business. When you shoplift, you directly and unambiguously impoverish your community. You make prices higher for everybody else, you make stores less usable for everybody else, or you make businesses not viable that would otherwise be viable. The direct impact each time is small, but it's a lot larger than the direct impact of taking some trash out of the trash can to throw on the ground, or pouring just a tiny bit of poison into your local river, and most people have a deep, instinctive abhorrence of antisocially wrecking your community like that. So don't steal. The other thing that it seems possible some people might not understand is that while you might have a social circle that is incredibly nihilistic and cynical and thinks that everybody steals, in fact this is not true. Most people do not steal. Most people, if they learn that you steal, will lose more respect for you than you had to lose. I don't know anyone who has shoplifted except 'as a kid/teenager'. It is not always the case that virtue is rewarded and vice is punished but even before you bring the legal system into it, the risk-reward tradeoff of having everybody you know know that you steal things sometimes is absolutely terrible. Who would hire someone who steals things? Who would trust them around a vulnerable person? Who would want to live in a society with someone who will delightedly and routinely wreck it for the slightest personal benefit? I hope that "Gina" turns her life around. I hope that Gina realizes that she needs to. And if you have been told that it's just a corporation or that having ethics is lame or that if you think about it, other bad things happen too, like wage theft, so that means stealing is okay, I hope you really, actually, think about whether you'd accept any of those as excuses for anything else.

New - Congress primary poll - NY 12 🔵 Bores 20% 🔵 Lasher 19% 🔵 Schlossberg 18% 🔵 Conway 13% Public policy #B - LV - 2/27

People seem to be concluding that voters dislike how both parties are handling AI. But actually it's just that 60% of voters say they don't know enough to form a judgment.

@FLI_org Why no AI personhood?

Today, a broad coalition issued the Pro-Human AI Declaration, defining the goals of the growing Pro-Human Movement in response to Silicon Valley's destructive race to replace humans. Leaders from both the Left and Right; parents; faith groups; labor unions; civil society organizations; and others came together to agree on 33 AI principles, across 5 key themes: 1. Keeping Humans in Charge 2. Avoiding Concentration of Power 3. Protecting the Human Experience 4. Human Agency and Liberty 5. Responsibility and Accountability for AI Companies 🔗 Read the full Declaration & add your name now at the link in the replies:

I declined to sign this based in large part on the "no AI personhood" clause. It's important that the legal status of AIs track the moral status of AIs -- in practice, this will be complicated to judge & implement, but "no rights ever" is categorically the wrong approach IMO.

@GuiveAssadi @AndyMasley Because you think they'd be politically counterproductive for AI safety, or what?

@AndyMasley I would rather they be distracted by nonsense about water and ineffectual tbh

I would like more people on the left to feel social permission to think about the risks from very capable AI rather than just feel obligated to presume the big problem with AI is that it's a scam, so I'm pretty excited that Bernie's moved in this direction

@rtwlz @tkanarsky @m1guelpf Thanks! Curious if you have a guess about when that'll be done, and/or post here once it's done?

@tkanarsky @m1guelpf Probably about 30% of the phones on the site don't work or don't exist anymore - Codex is calling every single one right now and will remove the bad ones. (Also I'm curious if anyone will pick up...)

Payphones are strangely still licensed in California, so I filed a FOIA request and got the full list. Naturally I made a game you can now play:

@GuiveAssadi I find that its style of talking is super annoying ("account's fresh, well played", "keep 'em all, honestly", etc.). Curious if you share my sensibilities here

Mr. Grok weighs in on my worst tweets

the anthropic principle

Yeah so this is crazy

I've decided to leave OpenAI. I'm incredibly proud of all the work I've been part of here, from helping create the reasoning paradigm with @MillionInt, scaling up test-time compute with @polynoamial, working on RL algorithms with my fellow strawberries, shipping o1-preview (which started life as of one of my derisking runs), to post-training o1 and o3 with @ericmitchellai, @yanndubs and many others. I'm most proud of having led the post-training team here for the last year -- the team has done incredible work and shipped some really smart models, including GPT-5, 5.1, 5.2, and 5.3-Codex. OpenAI has genuinely some of the most talented researchers I have ever met, and I have learned more than I could have imagined knowing since I joined as a new grad. I want to thank @markchen90 @FidjiSimo @sama @merettm for all their support over my time here, and too many collaborators to name for the insights, ideas, and just plain fun we have had working together. After leading post-training for a year, though, I'm longing to start fresh and return to IC research work. I've been thinking about going back to technical research for quite some time, and I genuinely believe my colleagues and team here are set up to succeed going forward without me. I'm personally very excited for my next chapter -- I'm proud to be joining @AnthropicAI to get back into the weeds in RL research, and I'm looking forward supporting my friends there at this important time. Many of people I most trust and respect have joined Anthropic over the last couple of years, and I'm excited to work with them again. I have also been very impressed with Anthropic's talent, research taste and values, and I'm excited to be part of what the company does next!

(Context: Tillis is a Republican senator)

OpenAI has released the language in their contract with the DoW, and it's exactly as Anthropic was claiming: "legalese that would allow those safeguards to be disregarded at will". Note: the first paragraph doesn't say "no autonomous weapons"! It says "AI can't control autonomous weapons as long as existing law (that doesn't exist) or the DoD says so." Similarly, the mass surveillance use cases will "comply with existing law", but many forms of data collection that we'd consider "mass surveillance" are things that the NSA has consistently argued are legal under current law.

We'll get a clearer sense of the OpenAI/DoW deal as more detail come out. And quite possibly, reasonable people will disagree. But one thing is very clear: it is inexcusable for the DoW to label Anthropic a supply chain risk. I would hope that everyone can agree on that.

@jachiam0 I feel like that's too tepid of a response. Call it what it is: an unprecedented, politically motivated vendetta against a private company.