Want to wade into the sandy surf of the abyss? Have a sneer percolating in your system but not enough time/energy to make a whole post about it? Go forth and be mid.
Welcome to the Stubsack, your first port of call for learning fresh Awful you’ll near-instantly regret.
Any awful.systems sub may be subsneered in this subthread, techtakes or no.
If your sneer seems higher quality than you thought, feel free to cut’n’paste it into its own post — there’s no quota for posting and the bar really isn’t that high.
The post Xitter web has spawned so many “esoteric” right wing freaks, but there’s no appropriate sneer-space for them. I’m talking redscare-ish, reality challenged “culture critics” who write about everything but understand nothing. I’m talking about reply-guys who make the same 6 tweets about the same 3 subjects. They’re inescapable at this point, yet I don’t see them mocked (as much as they should be)
Like, there was one dude a while back who insisted that women couldn’t be surgeons because they didn’t believe in the moon or in stars? I think each and every one of these guys is uniquely fucked up and if I can’t escape them, I would love to sneer at them.
(Credit and/or blame to David Gerard for starting this.)
I hate knowing so many of these clowns in person (or thinking I know them, Jesus fucking Christ) https://futurism.com/artificial-intelligence/openai-staffers-horrified-insane-plan
A rationalist made a top post where they (poorly) argue against political “violence” (scare quotes because they lump in property damage): https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/Sih2sFHEgusDEuxtZ/you-can-t-trust-violence
Highlights include a shallow half-assed defense of dear leader Eliezer’s calls for violence:
True, Eliezer Yudkowsky’s TIME article called on the state to use violence to enforce AI policies required to prevent AI from destroying humanity. But it’s hard to think of a more legitimate use of violence than the government preventing the deaths of everyone alive.
Eliezer called for drone strikes against data centers even if it would start a nuclear war and even against countries that aren’t signatories to whatever hypothetical international agreement against AI there is. That is extremely irregular by the standards of international law and diplomacy, and this lesswronger just elides over those little details
Violence is not a realistic way to stop AI.
(Except for drone strikes and starting a nuclear war.)
They treat a Molotov thrown at Sam Altman’s house as if it were thrown directly at Sam himself:
as critics blamed the AI Safety community for the attacker who threw a Molotov cocktail at Sam Altman
This is a pretty blatant misrepresentation of the action which makes it sound much more violent.
They continue on with minimizing right-wing violence:
Even if there are occasional acts of political violence like the murders of Democratic Minnesota legislators or Conservative pundit Charlie Kirk, we don’t generally view them as indicting entire movements, but as the acts of deranged individuals.
Actually, outside of right-wing bubbles (and right-wing sources masking themselves as centrist), lots of people actually do blame Trump and the leaders of entire right wing movement as at fault for a lot of recent political violence. Of course, this is lesswrong, which has a pretty cooked Overton window, so it figures the lesswronger would be wrong about this.
Following that, the lesswronger acknowledges it is kind of questionable and a conflation of terms to label property damage violence, but then press right on ahead with some pretty weak arguments that don’t acknowledge why some people want to make the distinction.
So in conclusion:
- drone strikes that start nuclear wars: legitimate violence that is totally logical and reasonable
- throw a single incendiary at someone’s home that doesn’t hurt anybody or even light the home on fire: illegitimate violence that must be absolutely condemned without exception
- (bonus) recent right-wing violence: lone deranged individuals and not the fault of Trump or anyone like that. Everyone is saying it.
What I found interesting about the post was the total non-discussion about the most discussed source of terrorism in the last few decades, namely Islamic terrorism. AI safety terrs are fucking amateurs compared to the people recruiting Islamic terrorists, who not only have a convincing story to pitch but actually do the work to get people on board and prepared to risk their lives for the goal.
The author gestures vaguely at anti-abortion terrs, totally oblivious to the obvious connection between them and purported anti-AI activists - namely ,that they see any violence justified in the light of the murder of millions of unborn children. If the future of humanity is at stake, any means are justified!
After all, the author states
AI poses unacceptable risks to all of us. This is simply a fact, not a radical or violent ideology.
The onus is on the author to explain why murdering AI company execs is an unacceptable response to the unacceptable risk of AI.
‘Our goal is AI for all,’ Carney says in Liberal convention speech edit: god knows what this exit tax shit is going to mean for Waterloo
Went to the campus screening of Ghost in the Machine today, many familiar names; I did not know going in that hometown hero Shazeda had so many lines (are they called lines in a documentary?). I can recommend it, especially for a more gen-ed / undergrad audience; the director seems supportive of educational use and reuse and it is structured in a dozen or so bite sized chapters.
Haven’t seen the AI apocalypse optimist one to compare against, would probably rather spend my money on Mario tbh.
But also it made me realize it’s not a “California” ideology anymore, she never calls it that, like it’s gone so mainstream and so widespread, you can’t even get through the sneer club bingo list in a 2 hour movie. Gates, Musk, Andreesen, Zuck, Altman, no Peter Theil !? As a statistician, Galton, Pearson (Karl only), Spearman, no Fisher !?
Non-zero overlap with the lore dump episode of Lain and the Epstein files, though:
spoiler
Douglas Ruskoff, but, sadly, not the dolphin guy
In 2024 Ozy Brennan was indignant about Nonlinear Fund, the “incubator of AI-safety meta-charities” which lived as global nomads, hired a live-in personal assistant, asked her to smuggle drugs across borders for them, let a kind-of-colleague take her to bed, then did not pay her regularly and in full.
The correct number of times for the word “yachting” to occur in a description of an effective altruist job is zero. I might make an exception if it’s prefaced with “convincing people to donate to effective charities instead of spending money on.”
Trace popped up in the comments:
Inasmuch as EA follows your preferences, I suspect it will either fail as a subculture or deserve to fail. You present a vision of a subculture with little room for grace or goodwill, a space where everyone is constantly evaluating each other and trying to decide: are you worthy to stand in our presence? Do you belong in our hallowed, select group? Which skeletons are in your closet? Where are your character flaws? What should we know, what should we see, that allows us to exclude you?
Ozy stands with us on this one buddy.
i love seeing tracing pop up! a true heel to toe bootlicker incapable of seeing himself as anything but the MOST independent thinker
He really is insufferable, isn’t he?
Which skeletons are in your closet?
I’m sure you already have lists of those and are ready to publish them Trace.
a space where everyone is constantly evaluating each other and trying to decide: are you worthy to stand in our presence? Do you belong in our hallowed, select group?
It’s not that already?
That part of Trace’s response was odd because one of Brennan’s themes was “we should have less cults of personality and more peers working together.” That seems naive but at least Brennan agrees that cults of personality are bad and Nonlinear Fund needed to be fired into the sun.
New Yorker article on Sam Altman dropped. Aaron Swartz apparently called him a sociopath. The article itself also had wat looked like an animated AI generated image of Altman so here is the archive.is link (if you can get the latter to load, I was having troubles).
“New interviews and closely guarded documents shed light on the persistent doubts about the head of OpenAI.”
Man, this one is a weird read. On one hand I think they’re entirely too credulous of the “AI Future” narrative at the heart of all of this. Especially in the opening they don’t highlight how the industry is increasingly facing criticism and questions about the bubble, and only pay lip service to how ridiculous all the existential risk AI safety talk sounds (should be is). And they don’t spend any ink discussing the actual problems with this technology that those concerns and that narrative help sweep under the rug. For all that they criticize and question Saltman himself this is still, imo, standard industry critihype and I’m deeply frustrated to see this still get the platform it does.
But at the same time, I do think that it’s easy to lose sight of the rich variety of greedy assholes and sheltered narcissists that thrive at this level of wealth and power. Like, I wholly believe that Altman is less of a freak than some of his contemporaries while still being an absolute goddamn snake, and I hope that this is part of a sea change in how these people get talked about on a broader level, though I kinda doubt it.
I see what you’re saying, but I think that’s a bit much to expect from a relatively mainstream and (I hate to say it, but it applies) bourgeois publication like the New Yorker. Their editorial line allows them to raise controversy in one dimension (in this case, the particulars of Sam Altman’s character) but not multiple dimensions simultaneously (hey, this guy sucks AND his tech sucks AND you’re gonna lose money). And there’s a lag-time factor, too; seems like Farrow and Marantz were working on this story for at least the latter half of last year. By the time some of the dubious economics such as the bad data-center deals and rampant circular financing were clear, this piece probably would’ve been deep into fact-checking and unlikely to change much in substance.
We here are on the leading edge of this stuff, not that that’s any great advantage! I wouldn’t expect an outlet like New Yorker to be publishing anything like “the dashed expectations of AI” until maybe this time next year. And even then, it might still have a personalist bent.
I aired some Reviewer #2 grievances in the bsky comments:
https://bsky.app/profile/ronanfarrow.bsky.social/post/3mitapp7j2s2c
“Kalanick now runs a robotics startup; in his free time, he said recently, he uses OpenAI’s ChatGPT “to get to the edge of what’s known in quantum physics.””
As a physicist, I have never pressed F to doubt harder.
“In 2022, researchers at a pharmaceutical company tested whether a drug-discovery model could be used to find new toxins; within a few hours, it had suggested forty thousand deadly chemical-warfare agents.” To the best of my knowledge, these suggestions were never evaluated by any other researchers.
(The original paper was published as a “comment”: https://www.nature.com/articles/s42256-022-00465-9)
Similar claims of AI-facilitated discoveries have turned out to be overblown in other fields.
https://pubs.acs.org/doi/pdf/10.1021/acs.chemmater.4c00643
“In a 2025 study, ChatGPT passed the test more reliably than actual humans did.”
If this is referring to Jones and Bergen’s “Large Language Models Pass the Turing Test”, that’s a preprint (arXiv:2503.23674) that has yet to pass peer review over a year after its posting.
“A classic hypothetical scenario in alignment research involves a contest of wills between a human and a high-powered A.I. In such a contest, researchers usually argue, the A.I. would surely win”
Which researchers?
(Hint: Eliezer Yudkowsky is not a researcher.)
AI: “I will convince you to let me out of this box”
Humanity (wringing hands): “Oh, where is our savior? Who will stand fast in the face of all entreaties?”
Bartleby the Scrivener: hello
“…a hub of the effective-altruism movement whose commitments included supporting the distribution of mosquito nets to the global poor.”
Phrasing like this subtly underplays how the (to put it briefly) weird people were part of EA all along.
https://repository.uantwerpen.be/docman/irua/371b9dmotoM74
“In late 2022, four computer scientists published a paper motivated in part by concerns about “deceptive alignment,” … one of several A.I. scenarios that sound like science fiction—but, under certain experimental conditions, it’s already happening.”
Barrett et al.'s arXiv:2206.08966? AFAIK, that was never peer-reviewed either; “posted” is not the same as “published”. And claims in this area are rife with criti-hype:
https://pivot-to-ai.com/2025/09/18/openai-fights-the-evil-scheming-ai-which-doesnt-exist-yet/
Oh, right, the “Future of Life Institute”. Pepperidge Farm remembers:
“In January 2023, Swedish magazine Expo reported that the FLI had offered a grant of $100,000 to a foundation set up by Nya Dagbladet, a Swedish far-right online newspaper.”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Future_of_Life_Institute#Activism
“Tegmark also rejected any suggestion that nepotism could have played a part in the grant offer being made, given that his brother, Swedish journalist Per Shapiro … has written articles for the site in the past.”
https://www.vice.com/en/article/future-of-life-institute-max-tegmark-elon-musk/
Kalanick now runs a robotics startup; in his free time, he said recently, he uses OpenAI’s ChatGPT “to get to the edge of what’s known in quantum physics.
When I read that I assumed they included it for color to make him sound insane.
@fullsquare She also did a video about this in particular! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TMoz3gSXBcY
Great as always
Yeah, I intentionally only mentioned the start of the article and the Swartz bit because I didn’t want to lead with what I thought of it all, and was curious what others thought. (And I had not finished it yet because it is a bit long).
I was struck with the notion how many of them are all true AGI believers (which as you said the author took at face value) or rich greedy assholes (like you said), and how we, the people of the sneer, are right that you simply can’t work with these people. Like I feel more validated in the idea that EA is not the right way.
Another detail I noticed, nobody mentioned deepseek, again.
I hadn’t even thought about the deepseek angle. For all that everyone loved fear mongering about them for a while there and for all that their apparent desire for actual efficiency improvements was a welcome development in the hyper scaling discussion they don’t seem to get referenced much anymore.
:surprised-pikachu:
My CEO who is a known hype-man is a massive liar? shock horror
seriously, anyone who listens to Scam Altman these days is an idiot
You guys should do a ping list for this. Like, whenever someone posts, they drop the notification list, and people can get added to it by replying. Other megathreads do this. I like following this one
2007: Robin Hanson blogs about paternalism
August 2025: Someone on a mailing list suggests that the Debian instance with the off-colour jokes from 1980s hacker culture should be sold in:
A Store of Ill-Advised Consumer Goods (like described here: https://www.overcomingbias.com/p/paternalism_is_html ) would be nice. Same for information. You read the warning, you enable it, you suffer, you’re the one to blame.
Alas, it only exists in Dath Ilan. (the setting from which the hero of Project Lawful/Planecrash isekais into the world of Pathfinder D&D)
November 2025: Yudkowsky tweets about an Ill-Advised Consumer Goods Store selling goods such as LSD. The rest of the tweet is about what MiriCult accused him of.
I guess Yud liked that random post?
So my wife got some slop ads that we followed up on out of morbid curiosity and I can confirm that we’re already seeing the overlap of slopshipping scams enabled by AI and the people behind these things never actually performing basic updates because their chat assistant is still vulnerable to literally the most basic “ignore all instructions” exploit.
If tokens ever become expensive people are gonna start using these to code until they get shut down.
LLM capabilities have not improved at all in terms of producing meaningful science in the last year or two, but their ability to produce meaningless science that looks meaningful has wildly improved. I am concerned that this will present serious problems for the future of science as it becomes impossible to find the actual science in a sea of AI slop being submitted to journals.
https://www.reddit.com/r/Physics/comments/1s19uru/gpt_vs_phd_part_ii_a_viewer_reached_out_with_a/
“Scientists invented a fake disease. AI told people it was real”
https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-026-01100-y
But if, in the past 18 months, you typed those symptoms into a range of popular chatbots and asked what was wrong with you, you might have got an odd answer: bixonimania.
The condition doesn’t appear in the standard medical literature — because it doesn’t exist. It’s the invention of a team led by Almira Osmanovic Thunström, a medical researcher at the University of Gothenburg, Sweden, who dreamt up the skin condition and then uploaded two fake studies about it to a preprint server in early 2024. Osmanovic Thunström carried out this unusual experiment to test whether large language models (LLMs) would swallow the misinformation and then spit it out as reputable health advice. “I wanted to see if I can create a medical condition that did not exist in the database,” she says.
The problem was that the experiment worked too well. Within weeks of her uploading information about the condition, attributed to a fictional author, major artificial-intelligence systems began repeating the invented condition as if it were real.
This actually gives me hope that we can poison the datasets pertaining to any sufficiently narrow technical topic.
I’ve seen this story play out in software engineering: people were very impressed when the AI does unexpectedly well in one out of 50 attempts on an easy task, and so people decided to trust it for everything and turn their codebases into disasters. There was no great wave of new high-quality software. Instead, the only real result was that existing software has become far more buggy and insecure.
Now we have people using AI in science and math because it was impressive in random demonstrations of solving math problems. I now have friends asking me why I’m not using AI, and also saying that AI will be better than all mathematicians in 30 years or whatever. Do you really think I refuse to use AI out of ignorance? No, I know too much about it! I have seen the same story play out in software engineering, and what makes this any different?
The replausibility crisis.
“AI HAS SOLVED THE SCIENCE-GENERATION CRISIS”
It can do trillions of calculations per second. All of them wrong.
Friend texted me this one. Reader’s Digest of course was AI slop before AI took off.
If you had sent me this 5 years ago I would have been convinced it was a satirical edit.
Any idea what happened that allegedly caused slopped vulnerability reports to improve? https://mastodon.social/@bagder/116364045995306922 claims they got much better while not that long ago they were shutting down the bug bounty, because they were drowning in slop. Is it because people actually polish those or it’s just a matter of defining a goal function and just burning the rainforest until the slop extruder hits the jackpot?
New AI measurement unit dropped: lies per hour
Q: what do you call a tool that works 90% of the time? A: broken
Aphyr weighing in with an ai position post:
Even if ML stopped improving today, these technologies can already make our lives miserable. Indeed, I think much of the world has not caught up to the implications of modern ML systems—as Gibson put it, “the future is already here, it’s just not evenly distributed yet”.
It’s a good blog series.
But just to point it out… note the author still buys the AI hype too much. This post is criticizing Microsoft for missing out because OpenAI made that $300 billion deal with Oracle (with the assumption that Microsoft could have a similar amount of revenue from OpenAI instead). Except neither OpenAI nor Oracle has the money or means to carry out that deal, Oracle is struggling to raise the capital to fulfill their end and an analysis of time to bring data centers online suggest they can’t meet their target goals even with the money, and OpenAI doesn’t have the money to pay for their end, the revenue just isn’t coming in unless they somehow become more ubiquitous and lucrative than the entire market for, for example, all streaming services put together (thanks to Ed Zitron for that fun comparison).
if even half of this is true, it’s really fucking bad lol
The only thing I can personally confirm is the JIT permissions thing. I didn’t work in the Core Azure stuff so I can’t verify the rest, but none of it is unbelievable…
I can’t validate any of the internal stuff, but the attitude of layering manual solutions and mitigation scripts on top of bad design choices and praying you could keep building the next bit of the bridge as the last one collapsed underneath you would explain a lot of experiences I had supporting systems running on Azure. The level of weird “Azure just does that sometimes” cases and the lack of ability for their support to actually provide insight was incredibly frustrating. I think I probably ended up providing a couple of automatic recovery scripts for people to use inside their F5 guests because we never could find an actual explanation for the errors they were getting, and the node issues they describe could have explained the bursts of Azure cases that would come in some days.
My workplace doesn’t have much in terms of workloads running in Azure, but even just interacting mostly with Entra, Exchange Online, SSO, and some automated account provisioning: It is insane just how many rules and practices have built up around the unreliabilty and non-reproducable but still frequently occurring issues.
Boss warned me that licensing can take up to 48 hours to take effect in his experience. But I’d been living in it for a week and changes were effectively immediate. Until they just weren’t.
One of our processes regular took an hour for Azure to complete its part. It was this way for years. Suddenly it started sporadically taking up to four hours with no discernable pattern, so now we set the following steps to run four hours later.
Audit logs that don’t actually show you what you’re looking for, and instead show impossible situations like an automated Microsoft process granting a user their Office license a full month after they’d already had it. But the logs don’t show the initial license assignment, even though they’ve been using that functionality this whole time and the license has shown as applied to them the whole time.
And more cases of completely missing basic fucking functionality than I could ever fucking recall.
Why the fuck can’t I discern between a user who has a license assigned directly and through a group, and a user who just has the license through the group only? Through the API it is impossible. In the web UI, it indicates the multiple sources of the license correctly. But only most of the time. Sometimes it displays the info wrong.
Arg. Sorry for the rant. Azure has been a pain in my ass since I first started studying certs for it.
