danimon retweeted
Cancelling a subscription shouldn't be this hard. If you can sign up with a click, you must be able to cancel with one.
Head to nyc.gov/click-to-cancel to file a complaint against any business that makes it hard to cancel a subscription.
danimon retweeted
グループ展「自己破壊芸術展」にて新作を2点展示します。
デジタルにおける「破壊」について考えを巡らせました
会期：10/2(金)〜10/18(日)
場所：東京・馬喰町 NEORT++
two.neort.io/ja/exhibitions/…
danimon retweeted
»I want to be part of keeping the history of the web alive.« – Olia Lialina
This is a photo I took of Olia Lialina and her partner, Dragan Espenschied, when I stayed at their place in southern Germany in 2020. She was kind enough to invite me to give a talk at Merz Akademie titled »Link in Bio. Artists on Instagram and Artists at the Limit?«
Many years later, as the conversation has moved on from Instagram to other topics such as AI, Olia and I caught up to discuss digital art and the terminology around it today.
🔜 on Right Click Save (@RtClick_Save)
danimon retweeted
@okdiario Si están ustedes tan tiesos de viruta como para no hacer fotos propias y recurrir a estas basuras gráficas de la IA, díganmelo, que no pasa nada. Con mucho gusto mis editores les enviarán unas fotos decentes. Y gratis.
danimon retweeted
Breaking: Michael Burry says OpenAI and Anthropic are faking the AI warnings due to slow growth ahead of IPOs
Below are his reasonings:
1. LLMs are not AI and won't be AGI. There is nothing AI to slow down.
2. Competition is coming up fast, slowing benefits incumbents.
3. IPOs need hype & puffery; "we are so awesome it could become dangerous" is hype & puffery
4. Cover for real uncontrollable slowing growth as IPOs look to be pushed out
danimon retweeted
The vanishing flora of the Swiss Alps, regrown by a machine.
Curator Nina Roehrs (@NinaRoehrs)
on 83 Seeds from a Vanishing Mountain (2023) by Sofia Crespo (@soficrespo91) & Anna Ridler (@annaridler) – a work that turns to AI not to record eighty-three endangered Alpine species, but to imagine what they might yet become, holding extinction and invention in the same image. The work also examines fragmentation as a condition of digital existence.
On view at HALLEN 07, 5–13 September, Berlin.
#BerlinArtWeek #AIart️️️️️️️️️️️️️️️️️️️️️️️️️️️️️️️️️️️️️️️️️️️️️️️️️️️
danimon retweeted
tristan buckmaster just published a statement that is, if accurate, one of the ugliest things i’ve read out of a frontier lab.
not because of the math. because of what happened after openai found out two people were about to beat them to the punch.
buckmaster and levent alpöge spent a year pushing the córdoba / martínez-zoroa program to smooth forcing. august 15 they got blowup for boussinesq and 3d euler. lean-verified august 22.
they were paying openai out of pocket and dumping every draft into private codex sessions.
the program is obscure. almost nobody else was on it. this was not “paste the clay problem into a chatbot.”
then this:
> thursday sept 3, buckmaster emails openai privately. rumors are flying. he is trying to stop a mess, not start one.
> they reply the same day: give us details so we can “avoid competing.” also, want free compute?
> sunday they suddenly need a call “at any point today.” sebastien bubeck gets on. levent is not invited.
> openai says an internal model has a ~100-page proof of forced navier–stokes blowup. fefferman options c and d. the exact route buckmaster and alpöge had quietly chosen.
> they show him a prompt and claim the model was “simply given the problem statement.” levent is told “very little human input.”
> that falls apart on the same call. a whole team had been on it. they started on the unforced problem, warmed the model up on easier equations including euler, and even the prompt they showed him was written by prompting codex.
> he asks when the first prompt went out. they stall. then agree: the past few days. after information about his work reached openai.
> he asks whether the model was trained on, or had access to, the private codex sessions where they put every draft of this project.
> answer: the model does not look up user data.
> he asks again. about training.
> no answer.
then it stops being a science story and becomes an hr story.
> offer 1: you post euler. we post navier–stokes the next day.
> offer 2: after you post euler, you alone write the navier–stokes paper, credit our model, and we cut levent.
> bubeck says twice he wants levent removed from authorship because he works at anthropic.
he declines both.
he says if they release it that way, he goes public.
the reply is not a scientific objection.
> “why would you ruin your career?”
> “if you don’t want me to be nice, then i don’t have to be nice.”
later, a text to levent proposing a one-on-one:
> “i don’t know if tristan is being fully rational right now.”
that is not how you treat a collaborator. that is how you split one.
openai got word two researchers were closing a path almost nobody else was on. they spun up a team on that exact path. they would not answer whether the researchers’ unpublished drafts in openai’s product were used. they tried to dictate the announcement order. they tried to remove a coauthor because he works at a competitor.
when that failed, someone reached for a career threat.
this is a lab finding out academics were about to publish, sprinting the same narrow program, refusing the data question, and trying to manage credit around a rival affiliation.
really slimy if even half of this holds.
what the fuck is happening.
holy shit.
tristan buckmaster is saying openai has a forced navier–stokes blowup via the córdoba / martínez-zoroa program.
and that it may have used drafts from his and levent alpöge’s private codex sessions.
that’s the córdoba / martínez-zoroa route. almost nobody else was on it.
he also says the first prompt went out after information about his and levent alpöge’s work reached openai. that “very little human input” was not true. that a whole team had already been set on easier problems, including euler. that even the prompt they showed him was written by prompting codex.
then he asked:
did the model have their private codex sessions.
no answer on training.
if any of that holds, openai didn’t just scoop a math result. they may have done it off two researchers’ unpublished drafts, then tried to cut the coauthor because he works at anthropic.
a millennium-problem-adjacent result just became employee drama before an ipo.
i don’t even know which part is crazier.
this is one of the slimiest things i’ve seen in this industry.
danimon retweeted
Open Call for EMAP Media Art Residencies. Residencies come w/ a €4,000 grant for the applying artist, travel costs + €2,000 for collaborating partner + €4,000 production budget. Accommodation is covered & each host institution opens up its studios, etc. call.emare.eu/
danimon retweeted
We will not get through this era of history well if we lose ourselves in anthropomorphism.
@anilkseth dissects @dwarkesh_sp’s misleadingly anthropomorphic summary of the HF incident:
@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.
The renthless, stable and coherent engineer is gone. Now I have a synthetic lurker who is doing bad job, avoiding tasks and stopping midtickets
Also the code reviewer reported lower quality code - lot of non conclusive issues. Higher model in this time delivers worse outcome.
