I know I’m not the only one who has been scratching their head at all the doomsday cries around AI that have suddenly rose up. Especially as it seems as if all those calls are coming from inside the house.
Play on fear hard enough and you have people not worrying about the actual limitations of LLMs. My worry is that they shift the goalposts hard enough that instead of them asking for a bailout, the narrative becomes them being nationalized for our safety with guys like Elon sitting at the head of a new governmental department or something. Government buys all this dead weight of an industry and the tech fascists get a permanent seat at the table.
They want you to think AI is going to destroy the world so that you forget that the rich are already destroying the world right now
Are you incapable of nuance?
Like,… But trickle down economics?
Basically what they want is regulations that they can write so nobody else can spin up an AI company, or run an independent AI model on their home lab for example. And yes, you can download an llm and run it on a beefy enough computer, independent from any LLM company.
Basically they want laws that develop a Monopoly so we have to rent out AI agents rather than make our own, and have that written down in law.
They also do not want say, smaller companies developing their own AI systems and instead be forced to rent from them.
Are there dangers in AI? Yes very so. Misaligned AI have done things in a lab setting that is concerning, but these regulations are calling for aren’t there to deal with that, it’s to create a monopoly because they realise that everyone from hobbyists to governments can run their own AI system if they can afford to.
They want to regulate away their biggest fear: open weights LLMs.
And, as a bonus, draw attention away from how harmfully Big Tech has packaged LLMs for the public. That’s the dangerous part.
That’s all the Terminator meme is. I’m not surprised influencers are being payed, given all the previous astroturfing in this space.
Yup. The problem isn’t the large language models, it’s the business models
Sabine is an idiot fraud
Thank you, that’s the first thing that came to mind. She’s a horrible person both to listen to as well as in terms of not being an empathetic human being.
I think Professor Dave says it best
She’s no prize to look at either.
Pull your dick off your ear next time you’re speaking
What an interesting idiom! Thanks for believing me when I say my dick is three feet long.
You have no idea how much I suffer.
Honestly - that’s low, dude. Don’t diss people’s looks. Weak.
I have this theory that when you are public facing, it behooves you to put your best foot forward.
For example, if you are going to talk to people in a grocery store trying to sell your pasta sauces, make sure your breath doesn’t smell like a seagull died behind your uvula. (I’m looking at you, Stefano Faita)
Your post is a 10 out of 10 on the bullshit meter.
Edit. The bait was taken, t was just a joke people.
She has no credibility.
Claims of Scientific Stagnation: Hossenfelder argues that foundational physics has made no real achievements in 40 years. She labels areas like string theory and supersymmetry as “mathematical fiction” and a waste of taxpayer money.
Accusations Against Academia: She has asserted that a large portion of tax-funded academic research amounts to “nonsense” produced solely to keep professors and institutions funded. (this comes from her failed academic career).
Institutional Fallout: Tensions regarding her sharp rhetoric culminated in public friction, including her departure from the Munich Center for Mathematical Philosophy, where she argued that much of modern foundational physics no longer follows the scientific method.
The “Motte-and-Bailey” Approach: Commentators point out that she often uses extreme, provocative statements (“science is dying”) to grab attention, but retreats to milder, defensible observations about administrative publish-or-perish pressures when challenged.
Aiding Science Denial: Science communicators, including Dave Farina (Professor Dave Explains), argue that portraying academia as a corrupt enterprise creates an undercurrent that inadvertently fuels science denialists.
She failed in academics for good reasons.
Lmao
Offered money by whom exactly?
I think all the anxiety around AI would significantly diminish if we had trust worthy leaders in tech overseeing it all.
Like, I’d have trusted the google of the early 00s.
Lol!! This is literally her AI channel. So, someone was dumb enough to offer her AI bot money, to say that AI is bad?
It’s more that they want to say “AI Dangerous”. It’s step 2 in the oligopoly playbook:
- ”It’s a perfectly safe miracle solution. Invest with us or miss out."
- "It turns out it’s really dangerous. We need the governments to make tough laws that coincidentally prevent start-up companies from competing with us, (while we don’t sell you any RAM chips.)
- “Remember those miraculous investment returns we promised, the evil governments forced us to spend them all on lawyers and stuff. Sorry about that. But the good news is…”
- “We have a new safe sure-fire miracle solution (to something new and different). Invest with us, or miss out!”
The video isn’t about how this is all BS, conclusion from section 1:
They reviewed roughly 1,250 papers on AI self-improvement and found that 74% of them were published in 2026 alone. This field is moving extremely fast. Anyone telling you this is all nonsense has just not read the literature. Is this recursive self-improvement RSI in the bounded sense? Absolutely yes. Al systems are improving themselves within well-defined tasks and the improved versions are producing further improvements. This is a real thing. It is demonstrated that is in the papers and none of this existed 5 years ago.
The caveat in the second section is:
We have much weaker evidence that it can decide what the research problem should be. And that gap, I cannot stress this enough, between optimization and judgment, between execution and scientific taste is the gap that we need to close before anything resembling an autonomous AI scientist could exist. And this is not a small gap
That’s still scary, yeah it probably won’t lead to human extinction, but it has serious implications for both economic and social life moving forward
I used to follow hossenfelder’s channel on youtube after hearing her on an episode of the Mindscape podcast. It seemed like a good place to get a skeptical point of view on some issues. Over time it became apparent to me that it waa pretty much just skepticism for the sake of skepticism. I don’t know of any actual controversy she is involved in, though some of the other comments here seem to imply there is some, but I definitely didn’t get good vibes.
She started on a sincere goal of knowledge translation, but then she got obsessed with the YouTube algorithm and many of her videos are hot takes she’s not qualified on.
AI-pushers: “The Apocalypse is nigh!” mom, tired: “we have The Apocalypse at home…” The Apocalypse at home: CAPITALISM
Lol, you anti-capitalism people are hilarious.
Is capitalism in the room with us right now? Does it want to drink our bones?
Yes, late stage capitalism in the US and many countries is a problem, but no… It’s not the source of all the problems in the world.
I told this sort of thing under the same category as religion at this point.
haha you are hilarious, is this brain of yours in the room with us right now?
yes late stage brain tumors in sh.itjust.works users and on many other instances is a problem, but no… it’s not the source of all the problems on fedi.
i told this sort of thing under the same category as bigotry at this point.
Data centers are coal/methane pigs. AI will (help) kill us. Just not in the way that’s being suggested.
i find it convenient that at the same time that AI cluster supposedly broke out of their “secure” sand box and “hacked” huggingface, “on their own”, as the AI ceo’s all individually wrote a paper about how there should be legislation constricting ai development in very specific yet seemingly the exact same ways, then they all had a meeting to agree on how to lobby the government, at the same time i am getting paid anti ai advertisements and news articles.
I’m sure all of these restrictions conveniently prevent other companies from developing the same level of AI that OpenAI and Anthropic have because it’s so “dangerous.” Thereby granting them a duopoly. I fully expect that Chinese AI companies are going to be restricted as well for “security reasons.”
Exactly. They have no ‘moat’ in vulture-capital-speak. So they’re now trying to buy one via
lobbyingbribes, legislation to cement their leading position. This is also why they’ve bought up all the RAM and SSD storage for the rest of this decade, to make the next gen of PCs and GPUs unaffordable for everyone else. This is phase two of forcing everyone into the cloud; a war against home computing.
can someone tell me who this influencer is? I already know enough about Sabine Hossenfelder to have an opinions about her.
She’s got a PHD in computer science, she gives a good explanation of exactly how the recent advancements in self improving AI work and under what conditions.
She’s not a racist (as far as I’ve seen), like Hossenfelder.
I’ve seen enough of Hossenfelder to take what she says with a grain of salt, but can you explain how she’s racist? I haven’t heard that before.
Here you go: https://youtu.be/BdB79BUcLV0
There’s 5 more videos on the bullshit that Sabine spouts in his playlist
It is a big red flag though that you’re not linking to her actual videos, but a summary that doesn’t include a link to her videos. Where’s the actual racist video? So easy to take these things out of context.
Professor Dave is pretty good at including ample material to demonstrate why people are full of shit. There’s no reason to give that sociopathic shitstain any more views.
more pro llm propaganda
Interesting point @13:12 of the video though; agents showed good performance improvements in limited scopes, but human researchers still showed much better improvement, over a factor of 2, ‘…showing better returns for increasing time budgets’.
There may be evidence of some ‘recursive self-improvement’ in research models rigged to modify and re-evaluate themselves, but it’s still only in very tight, limited knowledge areas. This isn’t SkyNet.
the problem with blackbox technology is their is no oversight or vetting methods. its literally the creators words being like ‘hey did a thing’ kind of like a 2 year old tanking at moms leg while shes busy…
