MSK

2/2 Second, on the messaging around AI.  I do not agree that my messaging has been disproportionately negative.  In fact it has been about equally balanced between risks and benefits: I’ve written one major essay about each, and even in interviews where I discuss the risks, I make sure to frequently mention the incredible benefits as well as proposing possible solutions to the risks (short clips from my interviews that end up on social media tend to be disproportionately negative, as that gets clicks).  In fact, I wrote Machines of Loving Grace because I didn’t feel the AI industry was painting an inspiring enough picture of how the technology could radically transform the world for the better.  The bulk of the essay is devoted to refuting skepticism of AI’s potential in health and biology, and showing why I think it will actually be possible to cure most human disease in ~5-10 years, as crazy as it may sound to ordinary people and frankly to biologists as well (I used to be one!).  And, if you read my most recent essay (Policy on the AI Exponential), I discuss concrete proposals for how to streamline the FDA process to make sure the deluge of AI-accelerated drugs isn’t slowed down by the regulatory process.  I feel the urgency here: I lost my father to Hepatitis C only a few years before the development of direct-acting antivirals (sofosbuvir), which cure 95% of patients and probably would have cured him. I do agree that the public has a negative view of AI (and that this is a big problem), but I don’t think it is primarily caused by me or any other AI leader warning about AI’s risks.  I think it is fundamentally a crisis of trust.  I think that ordinary people don’t trust companies, governments, or the tech industry and always suspect that we are cooking up some new way to screw them over.  The causes of this go back decades and AI is just the latest iteration of it.  I don’t think that a glitzy marketing campaign with a positive spin (which some have advocated that Anthropic do) is the way to win back that trust — at this point, saying that AI will cure cancer is more a cliche than it is inspiring, and most people think it is deceptive.  The thing that will work is *actually curing cancer*.  I think by far the most accurate criticism of AI companies including Anthropic is that we haven’t yet delivered on our big promises to benefit the world.  That is totally on us, and I think it’s the criticism you should be making, instead of all this stuff about messaging and marketing. We are however doing our best to fix this: Anthropic is ramping up its efforts very quickly in biology and medicine, and we hope to have incredible results in the coming years and some early glimmers in the coming months.  When we’ve actually accomplished something real, the whole world will hear about it, as loudly as possible, you have my word on that.  But until then I don’t want to make empty promises, and in the meantime I feel compelled to speak honestly about the very real risks of AI and how to address them.  Honesty is the right thing on the merits, and in terms of public credibility and trust it is no worse than, and may in fact be better than, an approach that ignores or distracts from risks which people instinctively understand are real.

These rankings come from the "World Happiness Report" Famously it's a sham report and not about happiness, which the authors happily admit: - doesn’t actually measure happiness - instead measures GDP per capita and life expectancy - is Western-centric but with an anti-American bias - is made by economists with an agenda, not psychologists who arguably know more about happiness Much more reliable is Gallup's International Report on Happiness 2025 which shows a complete different ranking: 1. China 2. Indonesia 3. Mexico 4. Saudi Arabia 5. Denmark 6. Kazakhstan 7. Malaysia 8. Peru 9. South Korea 10. Philippines gallup-international.com/sur…

In 20 years, vibe coders will look at the Linux kernel repo the way we look at the pyramids. In awe, unable to imagine how they managed to drag all those giant stones and pile them up in the middle of the desert.

EU President Ursula looked amazed and happy watching our Him Yodhas’ eagle and the local Dogesh in the parade.🦅🐕

The Pragmatic Programmer nails it again Absolute goldmine in the AI Coding age

The way to make code review fun is to remove the need to review code. That’s the ambition behind Cursor Bugbot. Writing code is fun because of flow state - creation moving at the speed of thought. Agents, especially fast ones, amplify that feeling. I’ve never felt flow from reviewing code. It’s inherently bitter work. You have to load huge amounts of context into your head, reason through it, spot inconsistencies, and then explain them clearly. Luckily, code review is a great task for AI. Imagine fully trusting Bugbot because you know it checked everything: ran the code, validated UI changes, verified against the PRD, and wrote and ran tests - much more than what any human reviewer would do. In that world, humans can focus on creating, not reviewing. We’re not there yet, but we’re getting close 🙂