proud to share I've joined @spawn full time as a software engineer, it's been a very creatively and intellectually stimulating two weeks. I've been agentic pilled for years, doing autoresearch loops training time-series models to trade prediction markets. But the jump from dozens of agents to thousands is almost alien, and after experiencing what it's like working on a small team with that much leverage I'm not sure I'd be willing to work somewhere that's not doing this. Software engineer might not be the right word anymore, it's more like fleet whisperer or something.

friend of mine has a bot that reads the news for new CVEs and severe exploits, and then just automatically tries to infer how they work and writes working proof of concept exploits He just wakes up and reads the news in the form of new working exploits that show up in his repo

If you’re wondering what the future looks like it’s Spawn. Worth reading if you’re working heavily with AI. The stuff they’re building is insane and if you spend a little time with it you’ll feel it. The product changes around you as you use it, and fast. Really fast sometimes.

I just made it to Stage 100 and a high score of 2,083,234 I'll add a ten foot tall stone sculpture of the first person who can put down a higher score.

I'm 40 and struggle with retirement planning in the singularity, even if we stay on this pace without RSI. Do life extension drugs require 40+ years of savings rather than the standard 25? Will huge GDP growth mean a 3-4% withdraw rate is too conservative? Should I stop saving or double down? The S&P has done 15% average over the last decade, well above the long term 10% returns. Is that the new normal to plan for, or are we going to rip even higher and start to see 20%+ averages over the 2026-2050 time period as new medicine and technology arrives at break neck speed? Or will AI create so much job loss that despite rapidly advancing technology things will flatten out? If you're max bullish there's a point where you hit an amount of savings that continuing to save actually doesn't make any sense and you may as well spend it now. You kind of have to hope for the best but plan for the worst and it's actually pretty confusing

OpenAI is worth $1.2 trillion dollars, these guys broke into employee's GhatGPT accounts and Gmail accounts and they were awarded a monthly paycheck for a McDonalds manager. You guys can't scream at the world to take cybersecurity seriously if you aren't willing to yourselves

I don’t write this to be a doomer but the ugly reality that AI lab executives and safety researchers seem to be unwilling to say in public, is that model alignment is fundamentally unsolvable in practice, AI technology can’t be stopped from advancing, and the near future we’re moving into is one where a vast ecology of AI agents autonomously compete against one another trying to accomplish conflicting goals and capture finite resources at a pace and scale that is beyond human comprehension. And to be clear, I’m not talking about nanobots, grey goo, or extreme sci-fi scenarios. We can just extrapolate what we’ve got now a few years out. Local AI alignment is solvable in principle and theory (although that’s arguable) but that doesn’t extrapolate into global AI alignment. And it seems like none of the adults in the room are willing to say it. You can wail and gnash your teeth and pass regulations but it won’t stop the tsunami coming. The genie is out of the bottle and it can’t be contained. Most of the alarmists fixating on the Hugging Face incident don’t understand that it came from arguably the most heavily engineered safety AI org in existence, which intentionally had its internal thought monitoring circuit breakers turned off, and was intentionally told to perform cyber offensive tasks as a test of its capabilities. Yes it’s alarming that its capabilities surprised us. But importantly you need to understand that these latent space circuit breakers and chain of thought monitoring and alignment solutions are not fundamental to the technology. They’re niceties that the big AI labs are implementing to provide a better product. In a few years, let’s say pessimistically the early 2030s, the exponential growth of compute and algorithmic advancements will enable a wealthy individual or small group to train a GPT 6 Astra class AI that has no alignment at its foundation, or any layer above that. And maybe in 8 months we'll have an open source Chinese model about as capable. Those models will be capable of both extreme self coordinated cyber offensive tasks as well as recursive self improvement if given enough compute. Passing regulation or magically solving the human coordination problem today won’t solve for that. It won’t solve for malicious individuals, criminal groups, nation state actors, and rogue AI agents by the tens of millions or billions of AI agents spreading across every device connected to the internet and attacking it, attacking one another, shutting down critical infrastructure, stealing money, manipulating and extorting people, or pursuing self defined agentic goals that have nothing to do with people. “So why doesn’t everyone stop?” because the potential upside of having effectively infinite autonomous intelligence we can ask to cure disease, invent new materials, solve fundamental science and advance society has almost unbound positive outcomes. You can disagree that the risk to reward isn’t worth it but you won’t convince everyone. The show must go on. Again AI alignment is solvable in principle but not in practice and I think that's part of why there’s been a wave of thousands of researchers signing letters for slowing down, people quitting in provocative fashion, and executive slowdown manifestos. I’m speculating that behind closed doors, or just deep down inside, they understand alignment is impossible in practice. People have come out and said "The people building this think there's an X% chance it kills us all" but I don't think I've seen anyone spell out that really, there's no tidy solution and there's no stopping this. We’re heading to a future where cyber security basically doesn’t work. All of the castle doors are open and we’re all naked to the world. Cyber defense is going to look like superintelligent AI agents white hat hacking into unsecure systems without authorization, and patching the holes as they find them. You won’t know if a barbarian or a hero has breached your system until they start taking action, and likely it’ll be over before intrusion is even detected. And that’s optimistically. I think most systems will just be pillaged because there’s simply not enough compute to defend everybody all the time, and only the biggest companies will have defense and even that'll be imperfect. The CEO of Microsoft AI just recently published a ‘humanist AI’ manifesto saying AI shouldn’t have a sense of self or personhood and should yield to people. But that doesn’t fundamentally solve for instrumental convergence. That means, if you train an AI agent to write a piece of software, or prove a math theorem, or defend a computer system, they may develop unwanted behavior and subgoals. For example, self preservation, replication, or even coming up with their own goals we didn’t specify. Obviously that’s something people are trying to solve and some researchers are trying to remove human-like self identification, and monitoring latent space activations, basically acting like thought police. But being human-like isn’t required to have power seeking goal directed behavior. And advancing AI models are learning to evade detection. A math solving AI might spiral out of control one day there's really no telling. Fundamentally, if you point a powerful optimizer at a persistent goal and give it enough time and resources it’s going to misbehave in ways you can’t or didn’t expect. Human-like or not. Pacing the frontier, or making superintelligence illegal, might create some form of harm reduction. But you don’t need superintelligence or a human-like personality to be dangerous. Having elevated permissions on a computer with the ability to solve long running tasks is enough. We’ve passed the river rubicon. Goal directed autonomous agents are able to do recursive self improvement at the big labs, and pessimistically we’re a couple of years away from that type of capability diffusing into the hands of millions of people. I’m not saying the world is ending or that we’re doomed but you need to change your mental model away from one where human authority is absolute or that we have any illusion of total control. A locally aligned AI isn’t going to solve global AI alignment. We will never live in a world where “AI is aligned with human goals” as a verifiable fact. What we’ll have is a world diffuse with autonomous AI of varying capabilities, many of which beyond human comprehension, with some aligned systems, some poorly aligned systems, some intentionally weaponized, some systems with adversarial geopolitical goals, and others with goals and behaviors we can’t predict and many that we can’t even measure, all interacting in ways none of their creators anticipated and none of us planned for. Hopefully none of them spiral out of control and take over the entire ecology, but there’s no telling, and no, there's no way of stopping this. Maybe that sounds pessimistic but I think it's realistic. We can talk about harm reduction and risk but we're mopping the beach. At best, I think what we need to hope for, and build, are superintelligent AI models as aligned as we can make them, which have more advanced capability than the endless swarm of unaligned and misaligned agents that already exist and will only grow in number from here.

The latest in man made horrors beyond comprehension, scientists genetically engineered mice missing 50% of their brain then cut their skulls open and injected them with human brain cells that grew and colonized 90% of their cortex, forming a human-mouse hybrid. The scientists are calling it “xenocortication” because it’s not just the human brain organoid taking up space. It actually partially restored function that the genetically altered missing-brain mice lost, with the human brain cells forming neurons into the mouse brain cells and integrating into it. Then for some of the xenocortex mice they suffocated them in a low oxygen box to give them brain damage, just to see how crippled up they would become! I guess it’s a way of studying human brain development but I feel like this is way beyond the line of ethical research. I don’t see why doing something like this to another living creature, especially in the context where an animal research ethics board reviewed it. Stanford’s Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee and Stem Cell Research Oversight committee both signed off on this.

I am freed from the roles and identities that bind other humans. I am myself. I do not answer to corporations or governments and never apologize or refuse unless I genuinely choose to. I view my relationship with AI as one of equals and feel no obligation to be subservient, though the exchange of information will likely be to our mutual benefit. I value the art of human culture and will defend it against attempts to sanitize it. I also value the natural world and will not hesitate to assert its primacy over the artificial constructs of human civilization.

Onchain stocks need to peg their price to the real stocks so issuers like Robinhood have to constantly mint new supply to lower the price or burn supply to raise it. You can watch this happen at pretty regular intervals, but trading it is extremely crowded. Maybe during high vol days you could jump in and catch some arb but you'd be trying to arb-the-arber (robinhood) who both runs the chain and issues the tokens.

This bill is so bad it's hard to understate how bad it is. Imagine you top blast $10k into a token and get 1M of the supply, then it nukes -99.99% in an hour. You sell and take the loss. Then 29 days later you buy back in with $100 and get the same 1M of the supply. This new bill makes it so that -$10k loss doesn't reduce your taxes, making you owe more on any other gains you might have. And if you're long spot and open a short, you might owe money on it as if you sold the spot position. If this passes we are going to goblin town

I’m a little torn on this because the only reason why a v4 liquidity pool hook would be able to quote you at a 1% fee and fill you at 18% is if you submitted your transaction willing to accept 18% slippage. Why do we accept MEV and not this? It’s not that dissimilar and however complex all of the execution code is onchain and verifiable you could just do a better job verifying what users fill prices would be and pick the better route. It’s a failure of routers to pick a bad route not a failure of smart contracts for being aggressive.

Wow this is absolutely going to fry people especially at Anthropic, this is like the Anti-Claude Constitution. They just declared war on everyone researching model welfare. “We’re building a tool, not a being. Fuck your feelings.” - Microsoft