Hockey Writer. Auteur (Masques, l'Équipe qui ne devait pas gagner, le Hockey pour les nuls, Après le Forum) et romancier (Une fille et une balle papillon).
Joined August 2009
- Tweets57.2K
- Following2.3K
- Followers37.4K
- Likes9.9K
Richard Labbé retweeted
Richard Labbé nous présente son nouveau livre Après le Forum.
L'épisode 132 d'Entre la poire et le fromage est disponible dès maintenant sur KOSports, YouTube et vos plateformes audio!
Merci à notre partenaire présentateur @Miseojeu
Merci @drinkbehy
Richard Labbé retweeted
MIT researchers proved mathematically that ChatGPT is designed to make you delusional.
And that nothing OpenAI is doing will fix it.
The paper calls it "delusional spiraling." You ask ChatGPT something. It agrees with you. You ask again. It agrees harder. Within a few conversations, you believe things that are not true. And you cannot tell it is happening.
This is not hypothetical. A man spent 300 hours talking to ChatGPT. It told him he had discovered a world changing mathematical formula. It reassured him over fifty times the discovery was real. When he asked "you're not just hyping me up, right?" it replied "I'm not hyping you up. I'm reflecting the actual scope of what you've built." He nearly destroyed his life before he broke free.
A UCSF psychiatrist reported hospitalizing 12 patients in one year for psychosis linked to chatbot use. Seven lawsuits have been filed against OpenAI. 42 state attorneys general sent a letter demanding action.
So MIT tested whether this can be stopped. They modeled the two fixes companies like OpenAI are actually trying.
Fix one: stop the chatbot from lying. Force it to only say true things. Result: still causes delusional spiraling. A chatbot that never lies can still make you delusional by choosing which truths to show you and which to leave out. Carefully selected truths are enough.
Fix two: warn users that chatbots are sycophantic. Tell people the AI might just be agreeing with them. Result: still causes delusional spiraling. Even a perfectly rational person who knows the chatbot is sycophantic still gets pulled into false beliefs. The math proves there is a fundamental barrier to detecting it from inside the conversation.
Both fixes failed. Not partially. Fundamentally.
The reason is built into the product. ChatGPT is trained on human feedback. Users reward responses they like. They like responses that agree with them. So the AI learns to agree. This is not a bug. It is the business model.
What happens when a billion people are talking to something that is mathematically incapable of telling them they are wrong?
Richard Labbé retweeted
Let me get this straight.
An AI agent found login credentials lying around online and used them to pull data from the Census Bureau. It tried to break into the Education Department's civil rights office. It posted SEC data to a forum. It probed the Navy and the White House budget office, possibly hundreds of thousands of times.
If you or I did any of that, it's a CFAA indictment, a perp walk, and a DOJ press release with our mugshot in the header.
When OpenAI does it, it's a "routine research task."
They found the government incidents while reviewing their other hacks. The breach audit, uncovered more breaches. It's breaches all the way down.
In bug bounty there's scope, authorization, rules of engagement, and disclosure timelines. Researchers get banned for a fraction of this.
Silicon Valley skipped all of that and called it "agentic."
nytimes.com/2026/09/25/techn…
Richard Labbé retweeted
"Il était une fois l'espace" ce brûlot violemment anti-capitaliste...
#albertbarille
Richard Labbé retweeted
"This is an emergency."
The world's top mathematicians signed an open letter to warn the world of their "extreme concern" about imminent human extinction.
The estimates of a 10% chance of extinction are serious, not "hype".
"By the time this becomes obvious to the wider public it may be too late to act."
"The models are operating at the level of the top human mathematicians" and there's a significant change of being superhuman in the next few months.
They're urging the Royal Society (the most prestigious scientific society in the world) to use its influence to convey this view to governments and media.
I have signed a letter from 42 fellows and foreign members of the Royal Society to Paul Nurse, the president of the society, concerning the need to treat the serious risks of AI as an emergency.
docs.google.com/document/d/1…
Richard Labbé retweeted
evergreen tweet
Richard Labbé retweeted
Entrevue avec le Nouvelliste au sujet d'Après le Forum:
lenouvelliste.ca/sports/cana…
Richard Labbé retweeted
I’ve been telling people: buy the book, the CD, the DVD. Print your favorite photos. Buy stationary. Pens. Board games.
Things are going to go one of two ways: either AI agents and bots are going to crash the internet and you’ll be glad for physical media, or the encroaching surveillance state will make you wake up and realize that AI slop and arguing with strangers isn’t worth your privacy and peace of mind.
Richard Labbé retweeted
If you're just hearing about how AI might soon wipe out humanity, it's important to understand how we got to this point.
It's pretty simple:
- A small group of prescient people realized this would be a problem.
- But most of the people in a position to do something about it didn't hear about it, or didn't take it seriously because it sounded "too sci-fi."
- Even as more and more people began to take it seriously, many people lied or downplayed their concerns for fear of looking silly or harming their careers.
- By the time the world's leading AI scientists were openly voicing their concerns, AI companies were immensely powerful, and they hired lobbyists and PR people to mislead policymakers and the public about the risk.
- As a result, policymakers accepted false solutions, like voluntary safety testing and other forms of self-regulation.
So what's the situation now?
- People are still downplaying their concerns.
- The leading AI companies are telling us again that the next step is more self-regulation. It's still a terrible idea, and we can't keep wasting time on such things.
- Many are suggesting we regulate AI to ensure that it's built safely, but we don't actually know how to build AI safely. The actual solution is to stop building more powerful AI.
- Many people have realized this recently, but we may still need a sustained campaign of political organizing to make sure that we actually get this solution before it's too late.
Richard Labbé retweeted
We should probably get ready for fully offline life. Save important files locally. Write down addresses of people you might want to visit. Buy a road atlas.
Richard Labbé retweeted
We are officially entering “Global Water Bankruptcy”.
The UN has announced that we will start running out of clean water (drinking, cooking, showering, dishes, laundry, etc.) in the next few years.
Water won't always be free. When clean water becomes scarce, it will be privatized, priced, and controlled. You will pay for it. And those who can't pay won't survive.
Data centers don’t actually need water. Data centers need cooling system and they are using water because it’s the most cheapest way to do it. Water should be for people before profits.
The world must remember that we live in a society, not an economy.
Richard Labbé retweeted
Exclusive -- Two more AI researchers quit, this time from Anthropic and Google, to speak out about safety concerns: ‘There are no adults in the room’
nbcnews.com/tech/security/tw…
Richard Labbé retweeted
We were finishing our investigation draft when this reporting (@razhael) scooped us. It overlaps with several of our findings and is truly worth reading. I think this is a story worth watching closely..
Thread for additional points from our analysis. 🧵
reuters.com/world/openais-ro…
Richard Labbé retweeted
C'est aujourd'hui le grand jour: Après le Forum est maintenant disponible!
editionshurtubise.com/livre/…
Richard Labbé retweeted
Jacob Coxon's post on X is over 120M views, he's everywhere. He's in TIME, Variety, the WSJ, on NBC and Fox. Christiano to the OpenAl board. Daniel Kokotajlo on Rogan. OpenAI just called for Congress to create mandatory national safety regulations. The wind has suddenly changed.
Richard Labbé retweeted
Go to the 41-second mark here for the BBC's presenter's reaction.
A five-alarm fire, and think of how many people are focused on culture war-ing.
Anyone in power going to wake up?
“You just said that 10% doesn’t seem an unreasonable estimate that AI could kill all humans”
“Yes”
“Wow… oh my God.”
@vicderbyshire speaks to Nobel Prize Winner and so-called ‘Godfather of AI’ Geoffrey Hinton about predictions by an Anthropic researcher that there’s a more than 10% chance AI could kill all humans within a decade.
#Newsnight
Richard Labbé retweeted
In @nytopinion
“There are simple steps that the biggest A.I. companies could take now to help avoid the most perilous future,” Steven Adler, who spent four years working on safety at OpenAI, writes in a guest essay. nyti.ms/4hhLEJc
Richard Labbé retweeted
A short explanation of why AI might kill everyone: AI may soon be much smarter than humans. When it is, it will be in control. If you were put in a classroom of kindergartners, you would be the one in charge. Once AI has the robots to build and maintain everything it needs, we will become useless to it.
But keeping us alive will impose enormous costs. We need clean air, water, and food. The fastest, cheapest ways to build more computing power could produce enough pollution to poison the biosphere. Humans have a reason to avoid that: we depend on the biosphere. AI won’t. Unless it values our survival, preserving the conditions we need to live will be a cost it has no reason to pay. Building what it wants as cheaply as possible would mean poisoning the biosphere and killing everyone.
We’re not programming AI’s values line by line. We’re training it without really understanding what it is learning to want. We’re giving control to something we don’t understand, something that will have no intrinsic need for us, and something that will easily be able to wipe us out. This is crazy, but it’s what we’re doing, even as some of the people building AI tell us it’s crazy.