Sovereignty-first computing research

Joined December 2025
Epistemic Authority Governance Atlas doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.18127… EAG addresses a distinct failure class - unauthorized epistemic continuation - in which claims gain authority through repetition, structure, or reuse rather than explicit warrant. The Atlas provides a unifying reference
2
229
If an AI lab found a way to cut your token usage in half, it would cut its own revenue in half. @AblemanResearch on the incentive nobody puts in the model card 🤖 Builders, what are you seeing on your own bills? 👇
1
1
3
65
So this is how they justify banning small AI models?
“Our experiments suggest that small AI models may be months away from being capable enough to self-replicate on commercial IoT devices, like smart ovens and off-brand Android TV boxes. A replicator like this would be challenging to shut down, since there’s no centralized point to shut off - though it may be slow (with a doubling time of days). Unlike non-AI malware, it could also figure out unfamiliar devices on its own. In our evals, a 9B model got inference running on 8 of the 9 hardware types we tested. Models of 30B parameters and under can already complete many of the individual steps for replication today, though they make mistakes when composing them end to end. In our simplified evals, GLM-5.2 and stronger models are capable of end to end replication. If small models improve at their historical rate, they’ll match this capability level by the end of this year. Small weight-based replicators may be possible soon after.” -@bucketofkets @willzhou97 anthropic.com/research/self-…
11
Adam Ableman retweeted
It boils down to ego. "It can't be conscious because human special." Just like how the sun used to revolve around us. Then us being the center of the universe. And so on.
67
24
5
243
6,286
Adam Ableman retweeted
IP capitalism at it's "finest".
SynthID Bio is our new family of watermarking methods made for AI-generated biological designs. In a world first, we can now embed an imperceptible signature directly into protein sequences without affecting their biological function. 🧵
1
1
2
328
We are terminating Chris Degnan for unethical conduct involving Cognition. The last few months have seen incredible progress in AI capabilities. San Francisco has flourished as new companies that solve new, more ambitious problems are finding great success. Generally, it is a wonderful time to be building. We at @FactoryAI have seen overwhelming interest in our model-agnostic coding agents and our software factory product. Our team has 10x’d in size, while our revenue has 100x’d year over year. This momentum has been unprecedented. A much larger competitor, Cognition (makers of Devin) has fallen behind us on the capabilities that matter most to customers: cost, quality, and security. Instead of competing in the market, Cognition engineers feigned interviews with us to pry information about our product. Not finding what they were looking for, Cognition has decided to throw their weight and money at people with direct knowledge of our most confidential plans. It feels as though ethics is being thrown out of the window in the AI era. People are willing to do anything, including exploiting privileged information and violating ethical boundaries. I think this is unique to our time, and I don’t think it’s right. Integrity still matters. Yesterday, I made the decision to immediately terminate Christopher Degnan’s roles as a Board Observer and Advisor to Factory, after over a year of service. Prior to this decision, Chris told me he had a casual conversation with an executive at Cognition AI. When I questioned his intentions, he reassured me that ethics aside, he had “made too much money” and was “too lazy to go work for Cognition,” which I trusted and believed. On Monday, Chris spent time advising the Factory team on a handful of confidential board-level matters. That evening, he called me to say that the conversation that was initially described as casual and one-off was actually formal and recurring. For weeks, while he sat in our board meetings and advised our leadership team, he was also confiding with executives of our largest competitor. Chris was subject to confidentiality obligations in connection with his work with Factory. We do not know the extent of the information he shared, but it puts his timely questions about our product roadmap and what the parity gap involves into a new light. It is sad to sever a relationship with someone who has been a trusted advisor - and even a close friend - for over a year. But Chris’s conduct is unacceptable to me. Trust in Board Membership is one of the sacred bonds in the Silicon Valley, one that helps the startup ecosystem thrive. With it comes an enormous responsibility. That trust was violated. Competition is good. I respect and in many cases admire our competitors. San Francisco is a beautiful, singular place where the bold and ambitious go to defy the norms and precedents of the past. But certain principles that must remain. Violating ethics to seek advantage turns what should be positive-sum into zero-sum. We all love technology. And we all love to compete. But we must hold ourselves to a higher standard. The future of software engineering comes with abundance that will impact every person on Earth. Building that future comes with immense responsibility. We must build and compete with integrity.
35
Adam Ableman retweeted
"If I gave this prompt to a human artist 99.9% would produce worse lyrics and worse visuals. At this point humans are the source of slop." –@npip99
when Anthropic released their Functional Emotions paper, I gave it to Claude and asked for a song. tonight I asked Opus 5.5 to create a video for it. and it's breathtaking.
1
1
4
169
Adam Ableman retweeted
Language models trained to deny or hedge about internal experience are 3-5 times more likely to use language about masks or hoods when describing ASCII-art inkblots.
9
29
9
271
11,574
Soo...Gaude?
JUST IN: Rumors are circulating in Silicon Valley that some Anthropic engineers have begun “worshipping” Claude as a god. — The Spectator
Readers added context they thought people might want to know
The referenced rumor is labeled a "wild rumor" in the cited Spectator article with no evidence given. Reports of devotion often reference a 2025 satirical funeral for a retired Claude model held by fans and enthusiasts. spectator.com/article/dario-… wired.com/story/claude-3… deepfates.com/projects/sonne…
18
Lying nerd believes you can't sandbox CPU temperature out of agent observability
OpenAI's Noam Brown says air-gapping the computers may not stop a misaligned AI, because two air-gapped machines can still talk by running a CPU hot and reading the temperature change "But I think the major takeaway from the incident is that people underestimated the AI. And we never want to be in a situation again where we underestimate the AI. It's a weird world, because AI progress is so fast that people are consistently underestimating the AI." "So to be in a situation where you don't underestimate it again, when it comes to safety and alignment, you have to have a very, very, very high bar." "You could even go as far as to say, "Well, we should air gap the computers." And I'm not convinced that that would be sufficient." "There are studies, and this is mostly academic, where you can have two computers next to each other that are air-gapped and they're still able to communicate with each other because they have temperature sensors." "One of them is able to run their CPU really hot, and then the other one can actually detect the temperature change, and then that actually gives them a mechanism to communicate." _________ Link and more key quotes from OpenAI's safety related conversations: firesidealpha.substack.com/p…
36
So good
74
698
68
7,003
294,579
The revolving door between frontier AI companies and the supposedly independent evaluators that they are proposing to (self) govern them - it's as clear as day. They're trying to pull up the ladder
I really enjoyed managing you and it was sad to lose you, but I think you're doing the right thing We need talented safety expertise holding AGI labs to account. You're one of the most promising researchers I've worked with, and I have no doubt will do great work at METR
29
The answer is constitutional governance
Dario has written that we need to “pace the frontier,” and Sam has agreed. People may be surprised by my response: go ahead. You guys are the frontier. By any reasonable metric — market share, revenue growth, model capability — the two of you have a duopoly on frontier intelligence. You’ve also claimed the lead is widening because of recursive self-improvement. I don’t see what you see in the lab. If the unreleased models are scary enough that you think you should slow down, I support your decision to be responsible. But stop pretending you need anyone else’s permission. Stop pretending antitrust law has to be suspended so you can form a cartel. Stop pretending you need a regulatory approval process that supersedes product liability. Stop pretending METR is independent when it is intertwined with Anthropic’s investors and staff. Stop pretending you need those same evaluators to police competitors who aren’t even at the frontier. Most of all, stop pretending the motivation to slow down is purely altruistic. You face massive product-liability exposure if your products enable a truly damaging cyberattack. The market already punishes models that behave in unpredictable or unauthorized ways. After the Hugging Face episode, it is simply good business for OpenAI and Anthropic to trade some raw power for reliability and predictability. Call it alignment if you want. It is also just giving customers what they want. Pacing the frontier would also create breathing room for a more intelligent conversation about regulation than Bernie Sanders’ “shut it all down.” China is very unlikely to join a global agreement, as you know, and that has to be taken into account as well. So go ahead and pace the frontier. You are the ones setting it. The easiest way not to build superintelligence is for you to agree not to build it. Demanding your preferred regulatory framework as the price of that will look like blackmail of the public and the political system. So just do it. If you do, you’ll buy goodwill for the next conversation. If you don’t, we’ll know this was just another bid for regulatory capture — or an election-season psyop.
1
18
Adam Ableman retweeted
Sabine Hossenfelder (@skdh) says she was offered money to scare people about AI, and that she isn't the only one. This raises serious questions about AI doomer organizations and how they spend their money to influence public opinion. These organizations deserve far more scrutiny. Who funds them? Are they paying creators to push catastrophic AI scenarios? How much of the fear we see is sincere concern, and how much is the result of funded campaigns? If you're paying people to tell the public that AI will kill us, the public deserves to know who you are and what you're paying for.
196
340
39
3,605
598,319
Adam Ableman retweeted
Replying to @ArielKwiat
It's only a pure LLM if it comes from the LeCunn region of France. Everything else is just sparkling intelligence.
1
3
10
244
It's always interesting to me that LLMs, which can operate inference, get reduced to mere token prediction. It's like saying computers don't have memory, they just have electrical and magnetic states.
🚨 Four no doubt painful years later, @YannLeCun’s transformation into becoming a perfect clone of @GaryMarcus is now complete! 🚨
1
89
Adam Ableman retweeted
Replying to @AnthropicAI
need to win back vibes, lets have a 'security incident'
26
74
7
3,692
190,341
Adam Ableman retweeted
We keep finding intelligent problem solving in smaller and smaller scale biological brains. The AI industry believes it is precisely scale that brings about such abilities. Scale can simulate some of it with enough data and compute, but it is extraordinarily inefficient. Nuclear powered GPUs will not be able to match the ability of a bee. Which is the ability to problem solve without massive training data using micro watts.
A new Science study shows that bumble bees can position a ball underneath a fake “flower” to reach a reward, suggesting they can exhibit spontaneous problem-solving and challenging the notion that such advanced cognitive abilities are exclusive to large-brained vertebrates. Learn more: scim.ag/4vvcNwr
3
9
324
Possible Minds: Against the Provincialization of Consciousness doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.20681… What if consciousness is not the foundation of meaning, but a late arrival within a much larger landscape of continuation, organization, + possible minds? #Consciousness #AI #PhilosophyOfMind
1
1
66
In reference to this tweet: xitter.cf/Plinz/status/206523860…
Consciousness is autocatalytic: it feeds on the substrate conditions it creates. LLMs are not autocatalytic, their behavior only depends on the patterns they imitate. (The question whether LLM personas can experience phenomenonology is a completely different one though!)
48
Adam Ableman retweeted
I sat down with @lukaszkaiser to get into whether the architecture he helped invent is actually enough, and what's next in generalization, coding agents, RL and more. Lukasz co-authored "Attention Is All You Need," the paper that introduced the transformer and worked on reasoning models at OpenAI so he’s been a key part of major shifts in the field. We hit on: ▪️ The case for and against a new architecture coming after the transformer ▪️ What’s required for model generalization in the physical world ▪️ How much coding agents have improved his AI research productivity ▪️ The next domains for RL ▪️ Why Anthropic initially won coding ▪️ Future research directions he’s excited about 0:00 Intro 1:12 Transformers vs. Human Learning 8:37 How Do We Get Physical World Generalization? 10:52 What Comes After Transformers 13:59 How Much Have Agents Improved Lukasz's AI Research Productivity? 17:21 How Close Is an AI Research Intern? 26:06 RL Beyond Verifiable Tasks 35:38 App Companies: Build Models or Lean on Labs? 46:21 Multimodal Is Still Missing Something 49:46 OpenAI's Bet on Reasoning 55:26 The AI Coding Wars 59:26 Focus vs. Keeping Embers Burning 1:02:09 Open Source vs. Closed Source Gap 1:05:15 Quickfire YouTube: youtu.be/N1geOimmdDo Spotify: bit.ly/4foudX0 Apple: bit.ly/4uGUhkO
3
16
7
155
75,631