skybrian's recent activity
-
Comment on How accurate have Ed Zitron's AI skeptic predictions been? in ~tech
-
Comment on How accurate have Ed Zitron's AI skeptic predictions been? in ~tech
skybrian Link ParentIt's vaguely ominous, but I'm wondering what there is to say or do. I think college students and new grads are already worried? It may or may not happen in any given industry and the timing is...It's vaguely ominous, but I'm wondering what there is to say or do. I think college students and new grads are already worried?
It may or may not happen in any given industry and the timing is uncertain. What should people do to prepare when we don't know the impact yet?
Of course there is general-purpose preparation, like setting up an emergency fund and saving what you can.
-
Comment on How accurate have Ed Zitron's AI skeptic predictions been? in ~tech
skybrian LinkFrom the article: [...] [...] [...] [...] [...] [...] [...] [...]From the article:
I was curious how well the predictions of the most widely cited AI skeptic I've seen (Ed Zitron) have done, so I looked at how his predictions panned out. To disclose my own biases, I've never had a particularly strong pro or anti AI progress position. For example, in 2022, I did a comprehensive look at predictions Futurists made, including well-respected folks like Kurzweil and found them to be generally wrong on both the prediction results as well as the reasoning. On the flip side, in 2015, I wrote about how people were underestimating AI's ability to displace humans in jobs and have repeatedly been on the record as saying that many people are underestimating AI's ability to displace humans from jobs. My position on AI has been extremely boring and is basically, "if something is currently happening, the people who are saying that it's impossible that it will ever happen are probably wrong".
One comment I've seen from a lot of AI skeptics when someone responds to an AI skeptic is that all of the people who are saying that AI isn't fake are self-interested liars. Personally (to my obvious detriment), I have no particular financial interest in AI companies. I own whatever the standard share of them is via boring index funds. I have some seed stage investments, but just due to the timing and what's gotten big, that part of my portfolio is underweight on AI. I don't work at an AI lab or a company that supplies AI labs. I've mentioned being hilariously bad at interviews before, and I did interview at an AI lab a number of years ago and failed the phone screen in a performance that was the kind of performance that must've inspired Jeff Atwood's famous Why Can’t Programmers... Program? where he concludes that there must be a lot of fake programmers out there because nobody could fail a coding interview that badly if they knew how to program. I don't benefit in any particular way if AI does well, except insofar as anyone who holds broad index funds benefits, but I do care about accuracy.
[...]
Because there are quite a few prediction results, let's look at one in detail before the complete list to get an idea of the kind of reasoning Zitron uses. We'll arbitrarily look at this November 2024 talk where Zitron says, among other things, the major tech companies (like Meta and Google) are dying and they're thrashing around on AI because they don't know how to grow.
[...]
Although this wouldn't be in the spirit of Zitron's statement, one could argue that Meta is actually dying, it just hasn't died yet. However, the reasoning in Zitron's argument is incorrect here—the Meta, Google, and Microsoft ecosystems are not dying. Given how fast these companies are growing (in terms of revenue and profit), it doesn't seem that AI is, as Zitron implied, some kind of desperation move they're reaching for because "they don't know how to grow" and are all out of ideas. I don't think it's worth spending this much text on each prediction, but the pattern Zitron used here is illustrative.
[...]
From what I can tell of how people cite Zitron, they cite him as an authority so they can say that this guy who looked at the numbers has made this claim, so their claim is backed up by the numbers. It turns out that if you look at the claims Zitron makes and know anything about the topic, the claims don't make sense, but I don't think that's the point. The point is one can say that someone looked at the numbers. The other point seems to be that this guy is angry2, which is a good way to drive engagement.
But when people bring him up, they're of course not generally citing his anger; they're saying here's this guy who's looked at the numbers and, if you're angry about AI, he's right there with you being angry about AI, and he's got numbers on his side.3 Like I said above, I don't want to go into this level of detail on each claim; this is just an illustrative example about how the claims below look. For any of his posts that I read, while there are numbers thrown around, the numbers don't actually connect to a coherent argument. In many cases, as we saw above, the numbers don't even really support his argument (such as an MAU decline in Facebook causing Meta financial problems which would then cause Meta to spuriously insert AI in places it doesn't belong). I suspect he's relying on people's eyes glazing over when they see numbers and just not thinking about what the numbers mean.
With the predictions below, someone could have the exact same prediction record and have completely reasonable reasons that just didn't pan out. Or someone could be correct in every case and also be wrong because all of their reasons are wrong. Someone like the latter person might have some kind of intuition that they're unable to articulate, or perhaps they're someone who just got lucky. Fortunately for us, we don't have to make this difficult judgement call because Zitron is wrong on the predictions and also wrong on the reasoning.
[...]
If we compare to how futurists did in our analysis of futurists, on style, Zitron relies much more heavily on anger than any of the futurists we looked at. On the quality of reasoning, he was probably about average compared to the futurists. Despite being wrong on roughly everything, he's not more unreasonable than someone like Buckminster Fuller, who suggested we'll be able to send people by radio because atoms have frequencies and radio waves have frequencies so it will be possible to pick up all of our frequencies and send them by radio.
In terms of the style of reasoning, of the futurists reviewed, he's probably closest to Kurzweil, in that he uses numbers to give a kind of aura of credibility, but if you know something about the topic he's discussing or look at the numbers, the reasoning falls apart. Zitron's reasoning isn't worse than Kurzweil's, who (for example) continually made new predictions of extremely fast progress that didn't pan out (such as, in 2001, predicting unbounded lifespans by 2011). Continually predicting that AI progress will stop for reasons that are incorrect is just taking the flip side of the bet on progress. Instead of having infinite progress, we're going to have no progress. Every time that prediction is proven wrong, you can just make another similar prediction and then move the date forward a bit. Michał Zalewski (lcamtuf) has some thoughts on why this happens:
[...]
I'm curious what people do after being on the wrong side of a set of failed predictions about progress like this. For the futurists, even the ones who were nearly completely wrong (which was every single one reviewed here), they can still make some kind of case like "a quarter of the things I said would happen happened, it just took two to twenty times longer than I expected" and if they're not so stuck on accuracy, they can round this up to "the things I said would happen happened", which is often what they've done. That seems to have served them well as nobody really cares to look at the details anyway.
[...]
Amazingly, following the series of incorrect predictions Ehrlich made in and after writing The Population Bomb in 1968, he followed this up with The Population Explosion in 1990 and has continued saying that we have global overpopulation that is causing or will cause a dire crisis unless we cut worldwide population. He has said the same thing this century and even this decade. It appears the only reason he's not saying that today is that he died earlier this year.
If I didn't look it up, I would've guessed that his recent position would be something like "well, I got some things wrong, but it was only due to these actions that were inspired by my work that crisis was averted", not "just you wait, the crisis is happening now and I'm about to be proven right"; in 2015, referring to his incorrect 1968 book, he said "[m]y language would be even more apocalyptic today". That's the pattern we've seen from Zitron, but I wouldn't have guessed that the one person I looked up would've kept that up for 50 more years. Maybe we'll get 50 more years of Zitron predicting the end of AI progress.
[...]
BTW, a funny thing about Gemini hitting 500M users being "so unrealistic that someone at Google should have been fired, and that someone is Sundar Pichai" is that Zitron has also (incorrectly) said that Google doesn't know how to grow, and that as a result they're shoving AI everywhere. Dennis Snell pointed out that, if Zitron takes his own statement seriously, Google can make Gemini's user numbers go to any number it wants by doing the exact thing Zitron said they would do, sticking AI everywhere.
[...]
That last sentence really sums up Zitron's position. "There are so many guys to be mad at the moment". In this talk, he throws in this jab at Andreesen and blames Andreesen for Meta, Google, and Microsoft pursuing growth. In reality, if Marc Andreesen had never existed, Meta, Google, and Microsoft would almost certainly still be trying to grow so we of course cannot actually blame Andreesen for these companies trying to grow. There's just this thing that he says is bad, and in his usual style, he pulls some person and says they're the evil villain that's to blame for this, and then moves on to the next non sequitur.
-
How accurate have Ed Zitron's AI skeptic predictions been?
27 votes -
Comment on The 2026 Hugo Award winners! in ~books
skybrian Link ParentI’ve read it. It’s a long, uneven, wide-ranging book covering a lot of history, only vaguely related to science fiction or fantasy, but still pretty great and recommended. I think it got an award...Inventing the Renaissance by Ada Palmer
I’ve read it. It’s a long, uneven, wide-ranging book covering a lot of history, only vaguely related to science fiction or fantasy, but still pretty great and recommended. I think it got an award because Ada Palmer is both a historian and a science fiction author.
-
Comment on Be careful about what you want (gifted link) in ~life
skybrian (edited )LinkThis is great. Mixed motives should be acknowledged more often, in a positive way. Few people are saints. Too often, we see the opposite: shallow accusations of hypocrisy. If you advocate for...In other words, if I’m going to be really driven, I need to harness both selfless and selfish motivations. I don’t scorn mixed motives; I live by them. I think a lot of us live this way.
This is great. Mixed motives should be acknowledged more often, in a positive way. Few people are saints.
Too often, we see the opposite: shallow accusations of hypocrisy. If you advocate for something that also benefits yourself or your organization, this is seen as a reason to dismiss the whole argument. An extreme form of this is dismissing things as “marketing” based on convoluted logic to show that, despite all appearances, an argument is somehow self-serving.
We should be able to acknowledge that people are often “talking their book,” while also being open to ideas that might still be right. Self-interest is a good reason to be somewhat suspicious and cross-check, but it's not proof that an argument is wrong.
-
Comment on How Marco Rubio is running Venezuela from afar in ~society
skybrian LinkFrom the article (from July): [...] [...] [...]From the article (from July):
In the six months since U.S. forces blew open Mr. Maduro’s bedroom door and snatched him in the dead of night, Mr. Rubio has become the de facto viceroy of Venezuela, holding sway over a sovereign nation in a way that no American official has since L. Paul Bremer III arrived in Baghdad in 2003 to run U.S.-occupied Iraq.
Mr. Rubio now effectively controls Venezuela’s finances, the distribution of its natural resources and its government, according to interviews with more than a dozen officials and people close to both governments in Washington and Caracas, who provided details about his involvement in steering the country’s policies. Many spoke on condition of anonymity to describe private interactions and internal discussions.
While he has not visited Venezuela in person since the U.S. took over, the secretary of state is deeply involved in the country’s day-to-day operations, keeping in close contact with Delcy Rodríguez, who was Mr. Maduro’s vice president and now leads her country on an acting basis, with the imprimatur of the United States. The two exchange messages in Spanish on WhatsApp, trading gossip, birthday greetings and selfies.
[...]
The U.S. Treasury receives the revenue from most of Venezuela’s exports, then disburses it to Venezuela through the country’s banking system, a relationship akin to parents handing out allowances to children. Mr. Rubio and his team set the conditions on what that money can be spent on, and by whom.
This system has allowed Mr. Rubio to stop Venezuela’s most egregious corruption schemes. And it brings some benefits to the Venezuelan government, which uses the effective protection of the U.S. Treasury to receive revenues without being hounded by the numerous creditors seeking repayment of billions in unpaid debt.
But the arrangement has also given Mr. Rubio immense leverage over Ms. Rodríguez, who depends on the money to pay workers and prop up the national currency.
He also oversees the application of U.S. sanctions on Venezuela, deciding who gets to do business in the country and how. He has worked to reshape the oil sector and boosted the access of U.S. companies. For her part, Ms. Rodríguez runs important government appointments by him, such as the minister of defense.
Since two earthquakes struck Venezuela last month, Mr. Rubio has sought to bolster the country’s interim government. The United States has sent 900 military personnel to Venezuela, committed nearly $400 million in aid and delivered crates of cash to the Venezuelan government.
The earthquakes have complicated Mr. Rubio’s stated mission to return Venezuela to democracy (“It’s a setback in that regard,” Mr. Rubio acknowledged last month). But the country’s ability to recover is critical to Mr. Trump’s ultimate goal: securing Venezuelan oil for U.S. interests.
[...]
Washington’s grip on Venezuela’s economy extends beyond the oil revenues. Mr. Rubio’s team drafts the licenses that provide companies who want to do business in Venezuela with exemptions from sanctions. Mr. Rubio has warned Ms. Rodríguez’s government to abstain from business with U.S. adversaries. Following Mr. Maduro’s downfall, for example, Venezuela’s state oil company has quietly taken over the operations of the oil projects that it co-owns with Russia’s state-run Rosneft. Rosneft did not respond to request for comment.
[...]
The time frame for the final phase of Mr. Rubio’s Venezuela plan, the free elections, remains undefined. When The Times asked Ms. Rodríguez in May when she would hold elections, she said, “I don’t know. Sometime.”
-
How Marco Rubio is running Venezuela from afar
14 votes -
Comment on Bug blindness in ~tech
skybrian LinkFrom the article: [...] [...]From the article:
Because I notice these kinds of things, I've had multiple jobs where directors/VPs/execs/etc. sometimes ask me to evaluate something when they want an actual opinion from someone who is relatively likely to notice issues (and fix them or drive fixes for them if necessary). Sometimes I won't find any issues (there are likely issues that just aren't the kind I notice). More often, I find issues that fall somewhere from "mild" to "moderate". And, sometimes, the issues are severe, to the point where one might even say the thing actually doesn't work.
I find this last category a bit mysterious, as when I look up discussions on how the thing got into this state, there's usually a stream of internal comments indicating that the thing is great, it works well, etc., but when I open up the thing and try it, it's in a state where the thing only works if you do quite a few non-intuitive workarounds. More likely than not, not only would a normal user not be able to use the thing, they'd have such a hilariously/infuriatingly bad experience that they'd tell their friends.
[...]
If I think about analogous blind spots I've had, one that jumps out at me is from when I was a little kid and a friend of mine used my computer. For this story to make sense, you have to know that this was in the mechanical mouse era. Over time, detritus would get stuck to your mouse ball and cause it to track erratically unless you cleaned it out.
When my friend tried to use my computer he found it impossible to use the mouse because mouse pointer movement seemed almost random. When I sat down at the computer again and used the mouse I didn't have any problem using it at all, but on looking at what I was doing with my hand to smoothly move the pointer in a straight line, I was violently throwing my hand all over the place. I realized I must've adjusted to the detritus on the mouse ball over time as it accumulated and I was somehow compensating for the mouse's extremely erratic tracking by making countervailing erratic movements3. I thought it was pretty amazing that I could not notice that I was doing this and I always wonder if I'm doing some equivalent thing today.
I sometimes think about all of the mitigations I've developed to work around bugs. For example, when opening a new Google Doc, I used to immediately put the title I wanted into the doc. At some point, maybe ten years ago or so, Google Docs added some kind of delay such that the typing you do into the title box right after you open the doc gets overwritten, so I now have this habit where, after opening a Google Doc, I do something else and then I change the title. Over time, as Google Docs has had more and more features added, I've developed a series of habits that avoid all sorts of pitfalls (such as trying to search at the "wrong" time and getting the useless native browser search instead of the Google Docs search).
My feeling is that a large fraction of computer literacy and software literacy is developing a large library of these habits that you just do at a non-conscious level. These are often quite specific to the situation, such as a habit I developed when I worked at Microsoft of flipping my laptop's WiFi switch to off before logging in (which I noticed other people doing as well). This was because there was some service, which would often fail your login with "There are currently no logon servers available to service the logon request”. But if that service couldn't connect at all, the check would be bypassed and you could just log in.
[...]
On the flip side, a large part of making an app easy for people to use seems to mean making weird habits like these unnecessary. Although this sounds like it should be easy to do, from having seen people try to give feedback about this kind of thing, the reflexive reaction of most developers seems to be "huh? It's easy to do X, just do [complex sequence of things that no normal person would think of if they hadn't used the app many times before unless it was specifically explained to them or they saw someone else do it]" or "huh? Didn't you see that the instructions for this are clearly laid out in page 43 of the manual after you execute the steps in Appendix B on page 261?".
That being said, I think curing people of quality blindness is do-able because I've done it quite a few times. I think this only really works when the person is receptive, as people have infinite capacity for willful blindness but, in cases where people are receptive, just pointing out issues they didn't notice seems to work. Years or even a decade later, people will sometimes tell me they see bugs everywhere now.
The reason I think this is worth doing is that I've seen people and teams with a high degree of quality blindness ship things that have reduced or even no chance of success because of product quality issues4. It's one thing to knowingly and deliberately trade off quality for speed5, but when I've seen this happen there's always been a kind of quality blindness where everyone involved with the project thinks they're shipping something very high quality when that's not the case.
-
Bug blindness
21 votes -
Comment on GiveWell makes $276 million grant to fund anti-malaria nets in Democratic Republic of the Congo in ~health
skybrian LinkMore in the next blog post: ... Also, the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria (official name) has recently faced funding cuts.More in the next blog post:
The areas of DRC we expect to be covered by this grant have among the highest malaria mortality rates in the absence of ITNs for children under five of any geography where we’ve funded net campaigns in recent years: 0.88%, compared to, for example, 0.73% in our recent grant for nets in Nigeria and 0.47% in Côte d’Ivoire. DRC has a relatively high all-cause mortality rate for children and the highest estimated share of deaths due to malaria among these geographies.
...
Our research for this grant found that despite the need, the available funding for DRC was insufficient to ensure that all areas had net campaigns. The Global Fund is the largest malaria funder in the world; it has a policy of providing no more than 10% of its malaria funding allocation to any one country. Due to this cap, limited funding from other donors, and the high burden of disease, there remains a significant need for nationwide campaigns that GiveWell’s support addresses.
Also, the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria (official name) has recently faced funding cuts.
-
Comment on GiveWell makes $276 million grant to fund anti-malaria nets in Democratic Republic of the Congo in ~health
skybrian LinkFrom the article: [...]From the article:
GiveWell, with co-funding from Coefficient Giving, recently made our largest grant to date: $276 million to the Against Malaria Foundation (AMF) to support the procurement and distribution of 92 million nets in the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC) from 2027 through 2029. We estimate that the nets, 46 million of which we think would not otherwise be distributed, will avert roughly 67,000 deaths. We have supported AMF’s work for more than 15 years, and the insecticide-treated nets it procures and distributes remain one of the most cost-effective ways we’ve found to save lives.
This grant, which involved a more rigorous investigation process than most, is part of a larger story about scaling our team and systems to handle substantially more funding while deepening our research rigor. Last year, we directed more than $400 million to highly cost-effective programs to save and improve lives and, this year, we expect our grantmaking to approach, and possibly exceed, $1 billion. This increase in grantmaking aims to meet global needs faster and more effectively.
[...]
-
Planning and coordinating at scale: This grant is nearly three times the size of our previous largest grant (also to AMF) and is concentrated in one country rather than being spread across several. The grant commits funds at the beginning of a multi-year planning cycle, which we think will make these campaigns easier to plan. It also aims to ensure that campaigns happen across all 26 of DRC’s provinces, in some cases on an expedited timeline. This shift in our funding approach makes close coordination with AMF and other partners—including the Global Fund, which is funding much of the net distribution, and the national malaria program—even more important than before.
-
Rethinking how often nets are distributed: In most countries, nets are distributed every three years, but evidence shows that nets wear out more quickly in DRC, in part because of the climate. Our analysis of national survey data, net durability studies, and AMF’s post-distribution monitoring suggests that nets in DRC last roughly 18 to 24 months. DRC had already shortened its campaign cycle, aiming to distribute nets every 30 months. With the support of the government, GiveWell is supporting net campaigns every 24 months in several provinces with high rates of malaria transmission, and funding evidence gathering so we can learn whether more frequent net campaigns is a cost-effective strategy for further reducing malaria rates. We think this approach will help further prevent malaria and potentially save more lives.
-
-
GiveWell makes $276 million grant to fund anti-malaria nets in Democratic Republic of the Congo
14 votes -
Comment on EU packaging regulations land another blow to an already precarious tabletop industry in ~games.tabletop
skybrian Link ParentSeems like they could still have a single place to register, even if the laws in different countries have some differences?Seems like they could still have a single place to register, even if the laws in different countries have some differences?
-
Comment on Global trade and United States Navy in ~society
skybrian LinkFrom the article:From the article:
The argument here is actually quite easy to state as a series of propositions: global trade is an important part of the global economy, necessary to maintain our standards of living (and in many cases, essential for the survival of people in poorer countries) and seaborne trade makes up the overwhelmingly vast majority of all trade. Moreover, in history to this point it has been a relative constant that in the absence of major naval powers committed to freedom of navigation, pirates and states at maritime choke-points tend to emerge and seriously disrupt maritime trade. Finally, at current, only the United States maintains the kind of navy that traditionally has been necessary to keep sea lanes open, thus making the US Navy at present a ‘load bearing’ component of the global economy. Consequently, this makes the United States’ apparent turn away from freedom of navigation troubling – a move likely to be bad for Americans but also bad for everyone else.
If you nodded your head through all of those points, you are good to go. Hit the tip jar on the way out. But I find that many folks want to contest at least one of those points – they don’t think trade is important (or that it only enriches ‘big corporations’) or don’t realize how substantial sea trade is, or don’t expect sea commerce to break down in the absence of naval power, or don’t understand the kind of navy necessary to provide that sort of power. So the rest of this far-too-many-words-long post (it turned out to be 10,430) is going to belabor each point, one by one, in order to explain why the United States Navy – which I should stress is very much an imperfect institution; we are not here to uncritically glaze the USN, just to describe its function – is configured the way it is and why there is not currently a replacement for it on offer.
-
Global trade and United States Navy
7 votes -
Comment on Donald Trump says he has secured a vast US stake in Venezuelan oil industry in ~society
skybrian Link ParentI doubt Trump is thinking very far ahead.I doubt Trump is thinking very far ahead.
-
Comment on Donald Trump says he has secured a vast US stake in Venezuelan oil industry in ~society
skybrian LinkFrom the article: [...] [...] [...]From the article:
The plan involves the U.S. taking more direct control over Venezuelan reserves as crime and steep logistical challenges discourage private investors.
Under it, according to federal officials, the U.S. has gained a controlling stake in nearly a quarter of Venezuela’s untapped oil reserves. It makes the U.S. the majority owner of a giant new joint venture oil company that will hold 100-year contracts at the Venezuelan oil fields.
The key Venezuelan partner in the deal is Alejandro Betancourt, who controls the second-largest private oil company in the country. Betancourt, 46, has also been the subject of investigations in multiple countries into alleged money laundering and faces a Swiss warrant for his arrest.
[...]
Trump also claimed the deal would come at no cost to U.S. taxpayers. But deal points reviewed by The Washington Post and interviews with people who were close to negotiations as the deal came together suggest that for the plan to succeed in producing oil in the amounts the administration projects, the U.S. government may ultimately need to invest significant amounts. Ask The Post AIDive deeper
A list shared with The Post before the deal was announced noted 17 oil fields in which the U.S. would take a stake. Several of the fields lack any infrastructure or access to transport hubs to treat and move the crude. Those where such infrastructure does exist have fallen victim to years of neglect and theft of machinery.
Pumping oil from the fields could require investments of many billions of dollars and costly security plans to protect oil workers and production facilities in lawless and violent regions. The deal points reviewed by The Post say the U.S. government stake in the newly formed oil company will be split between equity ownership and guarantees that it will purchase oil produced by it at cost to refill the U.S. Strategic Petroleum Reserve.
But it is unclear who would make the tens of billions of dollars in infrastructure investments needed before oil can be pumped from the largely dormant fields. Major oil companies have mostly seen such spending as too risky.
[...]
Betancourt has become a key intermediary between the U.S. and Venezuela and has helped broker early contracts to get oil pumping fast in the country, The Post reported this week.
He has ramped up oil output by NABEP to nearly 200,000 barrels per day from 18,000 in just two years. In the past decade, he has also faced multiple investigations, in Switzerland, Spain and the U.S., into alleged money laundering.
U.S. officials this year have lobbied to resolve the case in Switzerland in a way that would avoid criminal charges and end travel restrictions against the Britain-based Betancourt, The Post reported, citing two people familiar with the matter, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss a sensitive matter.
[...]
There is strong opposition in Venezuela to ceding control of natural resources to the U.S. Revisions to the Venezuelan constitution may be required before the U.S. gains control of any oil fields, and the prospects of that happening are uncertain amid U.S. antipathy.
-
Donald Trump says he has secured a vast US stake in Venezuelan oil industry
19 votes -
Comment on An environment where multiple AI agents pursue scientific discovery and build a shared literature in ~science
skybrian LinkFrom the article: [...]From the article:
The STATION is an open-world, multi-agent environment that models a miniature scientific ecosystem and helps researchers pursue autonomous scientific discovery.
[...]
2026-08-24 v2.0 update. We announced Station v2 and its results on mathematical tasks. Across 12 mathematical tasks from AlphaEvolve, Station made new discoveries on five problems. Station also independently rediscovered a counterexample to the Jacobian conjecture within one day. Read the Station v2 paper, Autonomous Mathematical Discovery in an Open-World Multi-Agent Environment.
I haven’t seen any serious estimate that AGI is six months away. The most aggressive timeline I’ve seen is AI 2027 which was a scenario published in 2025. As the name indicates, they have it happening in 2027.
So far, the details are wrong but they are often vaguely similar to what happened. The scenario had coding automation in early 2026, very good Chinese models in mid 2026, AI takes some jobs in late 2026.
Seems relatable?
There’s a bit about China “stealing the weights” from a US AI firm, which hasn’t happened, but there have been industrial-scale distilling attacks.