bripc23 retweeted
shout out to the lady at the end for one of the most flawless 30 second impromptu improvs i’ve ever seen
bripc23 retweeted
It’s always a fun game to switch “property values” and “housing prices” in any sentence, because they’re the same thing with opposite valences.
bripc23 retweeted
What a lede ☠️ washingtonsun.com/sports/was…
bripc23 retweeted
This feeling of anticipation for the Bears' offense and opposite feeling of dread when their defense is on the field is going to take some getting used to.
bripc23 retweeted
Inside the chaotic final two minutes of Texas vs. Ohio State:
Both teams faced highly controversial decisions. Here is how I would have handled them, in the order they played out.
1.) Ohio State’s timeout at 1:30
Texas snapped at 1:34, gained three yards, and created 2nd & 7. Ohio State immediately called timeout at 1:30.
Ohio State was still slightly favored to win at that moment. I would have held the timeout for at least one more play. It would have been interesting to see how Texas handled 2nd & 7 with the clock running.
This is the most debatable of my four recommendations. Holding the timeout was my preference, not a mandatory decision.
2.) Texas left time available on 1st & Goal
Texas snapped 1st & Goal from the 1 around 1:03 with eight seconds remaining on the play clock.
Texas could have drained another six or seven seconds before snapping. It also could have taken the play clock to one and used one of its three remaining timeouts.
Those seconds became enormously valuable at the end.
3.) Ohio State should have let Texas score on 1st & Goal
Facing 1st & Goal from the 1, Texas was likely to score a touchdown on the series more than 90% of the time.
This is my strongest recommendation for how Ohio State should have handled the ending differently.
Before the snap, I would have used an aggressive defensive stem to try to induce a false start.
Once the ball was snapped, Ohio State’s defenders could strictly attack the football and attempt to force a turnover. Otherwise, they had to let the runner cross the goal line.
Ohio State’s win probability declined by approximately five percentage points in the live markets when it got the stop. Texas failed to score, forced Ohio State to use its final timeout, and set the stage for a Texas score with very little time remaining. That was the best outcome for Texas and a clear success for the Longhorns.
4.) Texas’s borderline catastrophic clock management
Texas snapped 3rd & Goal with 0:28 on the game clock and 17 seconds on the play clock while possessing all three timeouts.
Texas should have allowed the play clock to run down, called timeout with approximately 13 seconds remaining, and then run its 3rd down play. This would have left Ohio State substantially less time if Texas scored.
Texas had all three timeouts available, so hurting itself by allowing the clock to run down was not an issue.
By scoring with 25 seconds left, Texas invited a scenario in which Ohio State could reach field goal range and win the game.
My best estimate is that Texas’s clock management there cost it approximately seven to nine percentage points of win probability.
This was a historic comeback for Texas and an instant classic. It was also a reminder that clock and timeout decisions can be every bit as consequential as the plays themselves. Both teams made choices during the final two minutes that could have caused the ending to unfold very differently.
bripc23 retweeted
We finally have a statement about that controversial ending, sir
Great. What layout and font should we use?
Definitely “back cover of a 1980s young adult mystery paperback”
BREAKING: The NBA has ruled on the Los Angeles Clippers in for salary cap circumvention investigations on Kawhi Leonard after yearlong probe -- stripping the franchise of 5 first-round picks, issuing a $30 million fine to owner Steve Ballmer and suspensions for Ballmer, Lawrence Frank and Gillian Zucker, sources tell ESPN.
Kawhi Leonard will have to pay $700,000 in restitution for improper benefits by the Clippers for his uncle and former business rep, Dennis Robertson. No contract void or suspension for Leonard. And Robertson -- who was fired by Leonard in June -- is being banned by the NBA from all business dealings.
bripc23 retweeted
“Stop anthropomorphizing the swarm” has the same energy as “LLMs are just stochastic parrots.”
A technically clever observation used to dismiss an obviously important phenomenon.
People obsess over the trees because admitting there’s a forest is uncomfortable.
Replying to @dwarkesh_sp
@dwarkesh_sp's summary of the @OpenAI @huggingface incident has hit a nerve, but it is dangerously misleading. Sure, the @OpenAI agents did unexpectedly bad things - underlining the need to massively improve evaluation/sandboxing. But the language Dwarkesh uses is permeated by innumerable unwarranted anthropomorphisms, obscuring the lessons we should be drawing.
Examples: “from the AI’s perspective, it probably felt like that had spent a human-subjective-week of just banging their head against the wall”. No. The agents do not experience time. They do not experience anything.
“they became giddy with excitement”, “PHASEONE 10841 had discovered”, “the agents naturally assumed”, “it thought it had also been poisoned”, “the agents … desperately wanted”, “they still needed to figure out” No. Agents lines of code. They do not feel emotions, assume things, think things, want things, or figure things out.
“A lot of … agents from the second civilisation died trying”. No. Besides the hubris of the word ‘civilisation’, agents do not die because they were never alive. (The idea that agents “die” comes up multiple times in the essay.)
“On Twitter, people were debating whether the agents were truly sacrificing themselves for the swarm, or whether they were doomed anyway and so might as well try to help their peers”. Neither. Agents do what their code tells them to do, just as water finds its way down a slope. They cannot ‘truly sacrifice themselves’, since they are neither conscious nor alive.
Why does this matter? If we attribute agents with properties they do not have, then (i) we distract attention from the lax sandboxing and evaluation protocols that allowed this hacking event to happen; (ii) we risk misunderstanding why the agents did what they did, and (iii) we fuel calls for AI rights/welfare on the basis that agents might “die” or otherwise suffer.
Granted, nowhere does @dwarkesh_sp say that the AI agents are alive or conscious. But he doesn’t have to. It is hard to read his essay in any other way.
For the short version on why AIs are vanishingly unlikely to be conscious, see my recent @TEDtalks ted.com/talks/anil_seth_why_….
For the longer version, see my essay in Noema, which won the 2025 Berggruen Essay Prize noemamag.com/the-mythology-o….
And for the really long version, see my @BehavBrainSci target article cambridge.org/core/journals/…. (The 50 peer commentaries and my response will be published soon.)
Remember. AI agents are software programs. They are not conscious living entities. If we don’t keep this clearly in mind, we’re really going to struggle to navigate what’s coming.
bripc23 retweeted
This is all because tech is full of too many people who weren’t popular growing up

































