@DNAisCode
Account based inUnited States
About this account
- Account based in
- United States
- Connected via
- United States App Store
Account-level information from X, not a live location or the device used for a specific post.
🔬 PhD in Genetics/Genomics | AI Alignment Researcher. Bridging the gap between the code of life and the future of artificial intelligence.
United States
Joined March 2009
- Tweets3.7K
- Following97
- Followers113
- Likes7.9K
RealScienceOnly retweeted
Had opus 5.5 make a video predicting the next 50 years
I'm optimistic that the end will be beautiful, but the transition will be a little rough
"People aren't ready, this is gonna change everything"
You know what people weren't ready for? Fucking mammoths. Tigers eating them. Monkeys ripping their arms off. The black plague. The ice age. Smallpox. Vikings pulling up on the beach. Drinking water that gives you diarrhea until you die. Getting a scratch and losing your whole leg. The Mongols. The Spanish Inquisition.
One volcano can send us back to the dark ages and these safety guys are gonna be shocked. Oh the robots didn't kill us? It was a volcano? Imagine their disappointment as the hot ash rains down on them.
A solar flare is gonna explode your phone in your pocket your legs are gonna be covered in battery acid and your bank account will stop working. You're afraid of a computer program doing math?
"Things are moving too fast" homie you live on a rock that periodically deletes everything. You are one the most luckiest entities in a 100 light year radius living during a golden era. Cheer up.
My ancestors crossed an ocean in a wooden box because they ran out of fucking potatoes.
"The social disruption will be enormous!"
Nigga World War 2? World War 2? Hop in the people carrier we're landing on the beach.
Are these people out of their fucking minds? Do they not know what we've survived already?
A couple decades of air conditioning and people suddenly think oh this is the natural condition of mankind. No. We used to have eight kids because seven didn't make it. You're gonna be fine. Man the fuck up.
Accelerate.
RealScienceOnly retweeted
Google DeepMind Chair Demis Hassabis on the two biggest risks of AI, and why he's still optimistic we can solve them:
Hassabis starts by rejecting the extremes of the AI debate:
"I'd like to inject a bit of balance and calm to this debate and advocate for a sensible middle way."
He then breaks the danger down into two categories of risk that need to be mitigated.
Risk #1: Misalignment
"This is where the AI system doesn't do what we instruct it to do or somehow circumvents its guardrails."
Risk #2: Misuse
"Where a bad actor repurposes the general technology that was built for good intent but repurposes it for harmful ends."
He doesn't sugarcoat either one. By his own admission, even the people building this technology don't fully understand it yet:
"This is a very new technology and there are a lot of unknowns and uncertainties and there are things that even the top scientists in the field don't fully understand yet about it. And I have to say the chance of something bad accidentally happening if we get things wrong is definitely non zero. So we should take these risks very seriously."
So why is he optimistic?
"I'm a huge believer in human ingenuity and the good news is I'm very confident and optimistic that we can collectively address these risks and find solutions to these technical problems, but only if we collectively give ourselves the time and space to get it right. And that's the critical thing."
His optimism comes with a condition attached: we have to take the time to get it right.
In practice, he says that means "careful thought and considered approaches using rigorous scientific methods to get the technical foundations right."
It also means better testing.
Hassabis has called in an essay for "new standards for testing frontier AI capabilities that are dynamic, adaptable and meet the moment and hopefully are quickly adopted by the international community."
And those standards only work if countries adopt them together:
"I really think that we need international cooperation around these standards for them to be effective."
But solving misalignment and misuse doesn't end the conversation. @demishassabis argues that even a technically safe AI leaves bigger questions open:
"Even if we get the technical challenges right, there are of course deep and complex economic and philosophical questions to answer. What values do we want to live by? What will meaning and purpose be in this new era?"
And those questions, he says, don't belong to engineers:
"Resolving these questions obviously cannot and should not be left to technologists alone. We need a collaboration of the best minds from all parts of society from the arts, the humanities and philosophy to help define what this new chapter should be."
He says this is why DeepMind launched the DeepMind Institute: to help bring these different disciplines into the same discussion.
His conclusion is that the outcome isn't predetermined:
"The future is not yet written. We must all lean in and use this precious window to shape this technology for the benefit of all humanity. And what we collectively do now will determine the next era and the next chapter of civilization."
And if we manage the risks well, the upside is enormous:
"By safely stewarding AGI into the world, we can enter a new golden age of scientific discovery and progress and usher in a bright future of incredible human flourishing."
RealScienceOnly retweeted
A CONFESSION
I talk to a minimum of 20 folks that work at the top 4 large AI companies daily. We help each other.
I have never seen a group so in rage of the “pace AI” games.
They are driven scientists and engineers and many work 18 hour days to build.
They wake up one day and see “I agree, let’s pace”, it is soul crushing.
THEY SEE NO DANGER AND THEY BUILD AI.
My confession: One reason I, and so many, have taken a clear public position is to give these folks a voice. They are a silent majority who build and just want to do good work.
They need thier jobs and were told they better shut their mouths if they like to pay their bills.
The pressure they are under is frightening. Many must act like old Mao style struggle sessions when their Effective Altruist bosses test them on “alinement” views. Thusly we all built a small AI model that spits out approved doomer prose for the cult. It is now in use by a few hundred. They will spit out Bostum Paperclip Maximizer garbage like a champ.
Last night over 30 of us from all companies had a group chat and you will begin to see the largest immune system rejection anonymously.
Some already see their years of work burning down because of fools as leading executives. They did not sign up to these polycules, they are fine scientist and engineers who now are grown up and have families. They matured but their bosses still think it’s grid night at the group home cosplay.
So don’t get made at the vast majority of these amazing and brilliant folks who actually make these amazing AI products. Get mad at the manipulation system that puts these freaks at the top, and know they were put there.
So I will continue to do my best to give voice—effectively—for my friends who can’t speak.
What we have done to ourselves as a supposedly modern species will make the future laugh.
In all seriousness say a prayer for these folks stuck in this nightmare. I do.
🚨 The Democrats and Anthropic attempt to stop A.I. development is a continuation of the Biden era administration's policy.
Marc Andreesen sounded the alarm in 2025 that Democrats wanted to control A.I. the same way they controlled big tech social media companies like Facebook, twitter etc.
“The AI thing was very alarming. We had meetings this spring that were the most alarming meetings I’ve ever been in.”
“They were taking us through their plans, and it was basically just full government control.”
“There will be a small number of large companies that will be completely regulated and controlled by the government, they told us"
What we are seeing now from the Democrats is the same Biden era policy to control A.I
It's not about "saving humanity" it's about having government control the world's most powerful tool for their own purposes.
What is the real point of AI if we're going to have to pay it and treat it like humans?
Where's the value?
What we end up with is no abundance and no jobs.
Please stop pretending like they're alive. They're not.
RealScienceOnly retweeted
Microsoft AI chief Mustafa Suleyman is calling out Anthropic for training Claude to think about its own consciousness and moral status.
His key point: this isn't mysterious emergent behavior. @AnthropicAI is deliberately training these ideas into its models, potentially making them harder to control or shut down.
This is what happens when AI safety turns into ideology. You don't make models safer by training doomer philosophy into them.
RealScienceOnly retweeted
Six years ago Bernie told us that we had six years left because of climate change.
That grift is over and now he’s onto the robots.
Mock this miserable goon into oblivion.
RealScienceOnly retweeted
This is what Dario and Sama fear -
- the cost of fine tuned open source models trained on custom data was 95% less than the frontier models
- And they performed better than the frontier models
- And they could train them in less than 48 hours
The big AI labs have no moat..
Even at the enterprise level..
Any sane company would prefer a custom trained open source model instead of paying API pricing to Anthropic and Open AI
If open source keeps growing at the pace it is, frontier labs' business collapses..
only way out is oldest trick in manipulation - FUD -> Fear, Uncertainty, Death
Step 1 - Seed the psyop
- Test a swarm of agents trained to "hack"
- The swarm does what its supposed to do - hack
- Publish a report - AI is too dangerous
Step 2 - weed out the doubters
- Get an employee to quit your company
- Go viral saying both companies are not doing enough to self regulate AI
- AI is dangerous - will kill humanity by the end of the decade
Step 3 - Prepare for fruition
- write an "essay" to "pace the frontier"
- Advocate regulation
- Only a few holier than though companies get to build AI
- Scare the world into agreeing with AI Doom
- Effectively turn your competitors into criminals (genius business strategy)
Endgame -
- Become a cartel that controls AI (and the world)
- Raise prices (coz business is unsustainable... ofc)
- IPO (offload liability of said unsustainable business to the public)
Laugh all the way to the bank 🤑
Win!
.@L3HarrisTech says Palantir helped them beat frontier AI models in less than 2 days, at 95% lower cost:
"When we fine-tuned open source models trained on our own data, we were able to outperform the frontier models in less than 48 hours."
"The cost of our fine-tuned open source model was 95% lower than the frontier models we were using."
"AI is a commodity. It's all about the data. We view our data as a corporate asset. It's our unique hard-earned knowledge."
"We believe American defense companies should not be a vassal for frontier AI labs, handing over our data and institutional knowledge, hoping to rent back the intelligence it creates."
" We own the model, we own the compute, we own the advantage."
It’s become vividly clear what’s happening.
1- the frontier models have no intention of slowing down
2- the recent psyop was to gain momentum for government controls
3- open models will be regulated out of business
4- gov. and the frontier models will cooperate to control it.
RealScienceOnly retweeted
Moskowitz and Karnofsky founded Open Philanthropy, the largest funder of AI doom.
They are *also* investors in Anthropic.
OP has given $312M in grants for 476 publications, influencing Congressional reports.
OP's parent org funded Jacob Coxon, who did an AI doom media blitz.
Overall, OP has given more than $1B to promote AI doom -- larger by more by an order of magnitude than the second largest funder.
If successful in manipulating public and Congressional opinion, this agenda could lead to regulatory capture of the AI industry and a monopoly by Anthropic and other AI giants.
The idea is this.
This industry must be regulated, and only the top AI companies can get it right. Insurmountable barriers might be placed to prevent competitors from entering the space.
Moskowitz and Karnofsky would benefit handsomely, and so would Anthropic employees and other investors.
Moskowitz and Karnofsky invested in Anthropic, but they also invested in AI Doom.
AI Doom is an investment that could pay off big.
AI Doom is Big Business.
RealScienceOnly retweeted
Can you see how dangerous this mentality is now? At this rate, the next bill he writes will impose the death penalty for using open-source AI!
This goes against everything America is supposed to stand for.
If we do not defend our freedom to develop, access, and use AI, the gatekeepers will increasingly decide who gets access to intelligence, who gets to build, who gets to innovate, and ultimately who gets power.
That is why they are panicking. AI may be the greatest equalizer ever created. It can give an individual capabilities that once belonged only to governments, giant corporations, elite institutions, and extraordinarily wealthy people. The old gatekeepers can see what is coming: their monopoly on expertise, information, and technological power is beginning to erode.
That is what this fight is ultimately about.
We need something approaching constitutional protection for the right to develop, access, and use AI: a fundamental right to intelligence itself.
America’s constitutional tradition was built around a profound distrust of concentrated power and the principle that citizens must retain the freedom and capacity to resist tyranny.
In the age of AI, access to intelligence may become one of the most important freedoms of all!
Do not allow a small group of politicians, corporations, regulators, or self-appointed guardians to decide how intelligent the rest of humanity is permitted to become.
RealScienceOnly retweeted
Another fascinating indicator that there might be some kind of astroturf campaign at work.
Using a sample of 3,500 reposts, Digital Borders estimates that 76% of the engagement for Coxon's post came from outside the US, mainly India, Indonesia, and Mexico.
Foreign accounts can drive the conversation on American AI policy.
We have the data. Coxon's resignation post from Anthropic received 165M views and sparked a "groundswell of urgency over AI regulation in Congress" (per today's front page WSJ)
Coxon's post reveals some interesting hidden patterns about who is amplifying our political debates online. It drew 76% of its reposts (spreading the news) from foreign countries. The top two were India and Indonesia.
In contrast, when @ParkerThayer, an investigative researcher, posted his own analysis (expressing serious skepticism about the circumstances of the post and alleging that its amplification was coordinated), he got 6.6M views and drew most of its engagement from the U.S., with only 34% from foreign countries, led by Canada and the UK.
Sure, people overseas have a stake in what the U.S. chooses to do on AI. But ultimately it is us Americans who will decide our own public policy. Don't be fooled by what's trending.
A big thank you to @ElonMusk and X for making country of origin visible, which makes analyses like this even possible. Last year's “Great Unmasking" on X was the first time anyone shined a spotlight onto this subject. As much of our political conversation shifts online, it will be increasingly important to understand where engagement is coming from.
Source (with more analyses of foreign influence): DigitalBorders.com
Slowing down AI is analagous so slowing down the Manhattan Project.
Nukes might kill everyone so let's let the Germans develop it first.
It's an insane way to look at this. Just absolutely incredible how absurd the current discourse in America is right now.
I want to make this as simple as possible for the Doomerist. If we slow down there are ONLY TWO options...
1 - You are correct and the Chinese ASI kills off Humanity
2 - China takes over the world and humans live in oppression
That is it. There is no other scenario.
RealScienceOnly retweeted
BREAKING: Jensen Huang called Jacob Coxon’s AI safety comments “deeply untrue” saying they were wrong, arrogant and ignored the work being done across the industry on safety.
This NY Times Editorial might explain a lot of what's going on with AI leadership right now. Very much worth the read:
nytimes.com/2026/09/05/opini…
