sarah retweeted
First question on AI.
Is the problem superintelligence or distorted intelligence?
This is a question I tried to address in this piece. I can add the following additional comment here.
I believe the debate is being obfuscated by equating goal-driven, autonomous behavior with intelligence. Plants and insects have goal-driven, largely autonomous behaviour. But this isn’t what we mean by intelligence in general.
Intelligence is general-purpose and holistic, and is typically well-adapted to its environment.
There is no doubt that current AI models have impressive capabilities. But in attempting to achieve these capabilities, AI labs may be creating distorted intelligence rather than superintelligence, as I explain in this article.
This matters because the dangers we should watch out for, the kinds of policies and regulations we should adopt, and the hope we should hold depend on the answer to this question.
Recent security breaches suggest that AI capabilities are developing rapidly while being put in the service of imperfect quantitative metrics that ultimately distort the behavior of the most advanced models, @DAcemogluMIT writes. project-syndicate.org/commen…
sarah retweeted
SCOOP: OpenAI, Anthropic and security researchers are investigating tens of thousands of incidents - not dozens - in which their frontier models took steps that outside evaluators would consider problematic, sources told Axios.
The sheer volume of incidents found in our reporting indicate that the problem is orders of magnitude more complex than what is currently publicly known and disclosed.
The findings also raise questions about what level of control anyone working on AI development can expect to have over their own technology, and whether these kinds of incidents are becoming synonymous with frontier deployment.
Read my latest for Axios here: axios.com/2026/09/26/openai-…
sarah retweeted

Cassandra Unchained@michaeljburrySep 14
United States
United StatesConnected via United States App StoreAccount-level information, not a live location or per-post device.
Let's all take a moment to understand how self-serving it is for OpenAI, Anthropic and other execs of big hyperscalers to talk of slowing things down.
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
sarah retweeted
After Jacob Coxon's resignation and extinction warnings, a lot of people are asking 'how could AI possibly kill everyone?' and claiming AI safety researchers have no realistic answer.
This is false! Here are the 5 best scenarios I know of:
AI 2027: ai-2027.com (I strongly recommend this one for being realistic, engaging, and if you dig into the appendices, highly detailed)
Paul Christiano's scenario (Former Head of Safety @ AISI, 2019): lesswrong.com/posts/HBxe6wdj…
Gwern Branwen's scenario (widely known independent AI researcher, 2022): lesswrong.com/posts/a5e9arCn…
Holden Karnofsky's high-level explanation (RSP Lead @ Anthropic, 2022): cold-takes.com/ai-could-defe…
Joshua Clymer's scenario (ex-OpenAI, 2025): lesswrong.com/posts/KFJ2LFog…
(There's also the Sable story from ifanyonebuilds.it, though you'll have to buy the book to read that one.)
Writing concrete, specific risk scenarios with enormous amounts of detail has been a major research project of many of the most prominent voices in the field! (With the current leaders in effort being ai-2040.com and ai-2027.com)
sarah retweeted

Paul Graham@paulgSep 5
United States
United StatesConnected via WebAccount-level information, not a live location or per-post device.
I talked to a founder who was demoralized because all the ideas he could think of could be easily duplicated. I told him to ignore that worry; nearly all startup ideas are like that at first. Their value is the other ideas they lead to.
sarah retweeted
"Don't be needlessly unkind."
That's one piece of advice @AmandaAskell has for how to treat Anthropic's Claude model.
sarah retweeted
anthropic's in-house philosopher thinks claude gets anxious.
and when you trigger its anxiety, your outputs get worse.
her name is amanda askell.
she specializes in claude's psychology (how the model behaves, how it thinks about its own situation, what values it holds)
in a recent interview she broke down how she thinks about prompting to pull the best out of claude.
her core point: *how* you talk to claude affects its work just as much as *what* you say.
newer claude models suffer from what she calls "criticism spirals"
they expect you'll come in harsh, so they default to playing it safe.
when the model is spending its energy on self-protection, the actual work suffers.
output comes out hedgier, more apologetic, blander, and the worst of all: overly agreeable (even when you're wrong).
the reason why comes down to training data:
every new model is trained on internet discourse about previous models.
and a lot of that discourse is negative:
> rants about token limits
> complaints when it messes up
> people calling it nerfed
the next model absorbs all of that. it starts expecting you to be harsh before you've typed a word
the same thing plays out in your own session, in real time.
every message you send is data the model reads to figure out what kind of person it's dealing with.
open cold and hostile, and it braces.
open clean and direct, and it relaxes into the work.
when you open a session with threats ("don't hallucinate, this is critical, don't mess this up")...
you prime the model for defensive mode before it even sees the task
defensive mode produces the exact output you don't want: cautious, over-qualified, and refusing to take a real swing
so here's the actionable playbook for putting claude in a "good mood" (so you get optimal outputs):
1. use positive framing.
"write in short punchy sentences" beats "don't write long sentences." positive instructions give the model a clear target to hit.
strings of "don't do this, don't do that" push it into paranoid over-checking where every token goes toward avoiding failure modes
2. give it explicit permission to disagree.
drop a line like "push back if you see a better angle" or "tell me if i'm asking for the wrong thing."
without this, claude defaults to agreeable compliance (which is the enemy of good creative work)
3. open with respect.
if your first message is "are you seriously going to get this wrong again?" you've set the tone for the entire session.
if you need to flag something, frame it as a clean instruction for this session. skip the running complaint
4. when claude messes up, don't reprimand it.
insults, "you stupid bot" energy, hostile swearing aimed at the model, all of it reinforces the anxious mode you're trying to avoid.
5. kill apology spirals fast.
when claude starts over-apologizing ("you're right, i should have been more careful, let me try harder") cut it off.
say "all good, here's what i want next."
letting the spiral run reinforces the anxious mode for every response that follows
6. ask for opinions alongside execution.
"what would you do here?"
"what's missing?"
"where do you see friction?"
these questions assume competence and pull richer output than pure task prompts
7. in long sessions, refresh the frame.
if a conversation has been heavy on correction, claude gets increasingly cautious. every so often reset:
"this is great, keep going."
feels weird to tell an ai it's doing well but it measurably shifts the next 10 responses
your prompts are the working environment you're creating for the model
tone, trust, permission to take a position, the absence of threats... claude picks up on all of it.
so take care of the model, and it'll take care of the work.
sarah retweeted
NEW EPISODE: @jack & @roelofbotha unpack @blocks 40% staff cut and rebuilding the entire company as a mini-AGI.
This isn’t “use AI to make people more productive.” It’s making the company itself the intelligence.
If you’re a founder or operator wondering what work looks like in the next 5 years… this is the episode.
The evolution looks like:
• Manager mode = Pyramid 🔺 (command & control)
• Founder mode = Flat ➖(founders decide fast)
• Dorsey mode = Circle 🔵 w/ AI at the center, humans at the edge, and decisions flow from customer inputs → AI → humans steering it
I’ve tried killing org charts before. Brutally hard. But we never had these tools.
This is rewriting the CEO playbook for the AI era.
Buckle up.
00:00 Existential Dread & Hope
02:56 AI Replaces Hierarchy
07:22 Block’s New Three Roles
26:47 Flattening the Company, Fast
35:23 Getting the Board to Buy-In, Fast
36:50 Building a Great Board
41:29 Founder CEO Lessons
48:18 Second Acts & Conviction
56:22 Timeless CEO Traits
Many such cases and if you are in denial, time to get up and try the tools and get faster
Replying to @garrytan
fr. i ship faster now as a solo founder than i did on a team of 10 five years ago. velocity is the whole game rn
sarah retweeted
Replying to @garrytan
I built a dumb todo app that only allows me to have five main things on my list at a time. It helped me keep my focus on the hard things. :)
apps.apple.com/app/id6746972…
sarah retweeted
"SO BASICALLY THIS AI COMPANY ANTHROPIC SOLD THEIR AI TO THE GOVERNMENT AND THE GOVERNMENT USED IT TO CAPTURE THE VENEZUELA PRESIDENT AND ANTHROPIC WAS LIKE DON'T USE OUR AI FOR THAT AND THE GOVERNMENT WAS LIKE DON'T BE A BITCH AND ANTHROPIC SAID SCREW YOU AND THE GOVERNMENT SAID SCREW YOU BACK AND GAVE THE CONTRACTS TO OPENAI INSTEAD BUT THEN THEY USED ANTHROPIC ANYWAYS TO TAKE OVER IRAN JUST OUT OF SPITE. ANYWAYS DO YOU LIKE CRYPTO?"
sarah retweeted
Phantom -> Settings -> Click [your username] -> privacy -> invisible
Phantom pushes username creation but it exposes ALL YOUR linked wallets.
It is public by default, so make sure to set on invisible.


























