Fake psyop slop.
Guy worked there for 6 weeks, almost no X followers when he posted his “I quit” thread, WSJ then posted their story around this post 18 mins later.
Which makes you question if this was the plan all along or he was totally naive not to think this though. Imagine if he did this with Aylo (formerly known as MindGeek) :)
I'm pretty skeptical as well. As soon as I saw his interview on NBC News last night I texted a friend that this guy is about to get a $500 million seed round for an AI alignment startup.
The entire interview he's just grinning like he has the "answer" to all these companies he alleges don't take safety seriously.
I also feel a need to amass retirement levels of wealth right ASAP before this all comes crashing down, and then move to somewhere else away from this mess.
The only good way for me to do that is to keep working in AI, because nothing else that I have skills for pays that high.
Yeah. Let's say they regulate AI to oblivion to avoid dangers, perhaps crashing the economy in the short-term but assuring that no major catastrophe occurs.
All those who worked in AI still have the money they cashed out on, there might not be another opportunity to obtain generational wealth in such a short time again.
1. By "crashing down" I was referring to civilization as we know it, not an economic crash. My views about building wealth aren't about avoiding an economic crash, it's about just being able to have optionality earlier to relocate myself and my family to the least-affected-by-AI part of the world.
My personal view of the modality of failure: I don't think AI will destroy humans, but rather functionally dismantle civilization as we know it; I think we will just increasingly become slaves to the systems they create and the world won't be run in human interests anymore (it already is not run in the bests interest of the non-ultra-wealthy, so it's really just an extension of that: I think the future will just start moving toward s/ultra-wealthy/AI/) and we will increasingly become more like worker ants.
2. I disagree, I think some countries of the world are more likely to value stability of the population than others. I think there are places that are likely to be more safe than others. Also, a notable side effect of current trade wars is that some countries may end up getting left out of a good chunk of the destruction.
qurren: Thanks for the reply, that certainly makes sense to me, though I think given the most popular idiocies in the air and their severe distortions on the discourse, it's not a great idea to leave that ambiguous in precisely that way.
It's bizarre that your reply was nearly insta-[dead] and I can't reply to it directly.
Every company that is not OpenAI or Anthropic is sufficiently behind the frontier to feel ethically shielded from the weight of advancing the frontier.
wow. that's really quite backwards. the more money you raise and the more money you want, the bigger the story you have to tell. apparently after 1T you've got to raise the stakes to extinction level event.
Capital concentration, they have access and lots of control over the media, their CEOs made themselves public personalities, they for some reasons decided to cosplay as Bond villains, they are linked to Trump (and lot of people hate Trump). Just a few reasons, I’m sure we can think of more
Which is itself a side effect of the US media treating most news as a spectacle, combined with the US (historically, but especially currently) being a phenomenally good place to be incredibly rich because much of the government will in a way that many developed nations would not allow.
It's mostly coming from two out of many American companies that happen to have the highest concentration of people from a very specific movement born in California long before the current AI wave. In fact Anthropic's entire internal culture was built around their views. The fact they operate massive amounts of money doesn't help.
He’s probably referencing effective accelerationism or something associated with the TESCREAL cloud of beliefs
Edit: saw the other responses. I don’t think effective altruism was the right answer. Effective accelerationism, which came out of effective altruism, has all the ideas about human extinction and needing to develop AGI at all costs to save the species insanity.
They have the most creditors, we’re at the top of the S-Curve, and inference margins have a lot of room to contract (and it’s not obvious that A\ or OAI are competitive against DeepSeek in that domain).
Suspicious in that it's unlikely or suspicious in that it betrays their real motivation?
On the former: It kind of makes sense if they think they can convince regulators that they (and maybe a few select competitors) are the only ones who can keep AI in check. Regulation can work in their favor given how well they're established, financially, compared to the small upstarts they need to keep down.
On the latter: I agree, see above. Promoting the idea that AI can or will kill us all, but also that it can't be stopped except by them, puts them in a position (if they're successful in their persuasion) to get more financial benefits.
One resignation distracted from the constant failures of AI in order to boost its value yet again, and to advocate for a particular AI company as saintly.
I have yet to see a positive improvement in the world that could be blamed on AI. Why don't they fix the DMVs of the world? The answer is that they would if they could, it would be great PR, but they can't. They can't even operate a phone for the corner drugstore.
I'm bullish on LLMs and they're defeating any optimism I have daily. I should see every program on my computer improving, but they're getting worse. I should see every website getting cleaner while heavy, crappy frameworks put in for developer convenience are being removed and being replaced with feather-light, minimal code and new designs that anticipate my needs. Nope, even getting worse. This is coding, where they're best.
Can somebody tell me anything that AI has improved in my life? The costs are obvious and massive. Just one improvement to hold onto my optimism.
Internal tooling is basically free. You may not care, but for me that’s a big deal. I don’t have to spend 6 months negotiating with an internal software team to build a trivial plugin that saves me a few hours a week. I ask the genie, and I get it for a couple dollars.
The only improvement I’ve seen is speed of development, but it’s come at the cost of quality. Hence pretty much every single piece of software a consumer uses becoming significantly worse over the past two years.
It’s especially worsened by every leader doing their damndest to force something related to AI into their workflows and products, regardlesss of if it’s a good fit, lest their own leaders or investors decide they are dinosaurs who need to be replaced.
"They" don't care about "fixing" the DMV. It's nice to think that "they would if they could" but in fact, the anti-government party actively cripples and dismantles government services so that people lose faith in government's ability to improve lives. And what would "fixing" it look like, anyway? Lower cost to operate or lower time-in-queue? Those are in conflict and as much as I would appreciate a better experience there when I have to go (once every 5 years), I think few people would be willing to pay $X/year for that.
On the other hand, my personal computer setup is better than it's been in a long time. Other peoples' software that I run has not improved much, but I've managed to fix several long-standing issues by just giving Fable access to my configuration and telling it my intent.
I've also vibe-coded several applications which are lighter-weight versions of things like Pinboard, Descript, and Weechat. I'm not releasing them because I've been doing OSS for 10 years and I've felt first-hand how the economics of open-source is skewed. And in this day and age where anyone can vibe up their own custom app, it doesn't feel worth it anymore.
What this tells me is that there's not proper incentive for the software you use to get "better" according to your values. You have implicit metrics of "cleanliness", "minimalism", "anticipatory design", and I share those values, but having worked as a SWE for 30 years, I have never worked for a corporation which encouraged those values. If I managed to inflict them on the corporate software I created, it was a "yes and" situation and I only did it because I (or other engineers) cared, never because management wanted it.
So the problem is not "AI is failing us" but rather "the system is failing to use these awesome tools to improve our lives". We can use AI to try to improve the system itself, but our system is not a github repo you can deploy to prod. It's a bit trickier to vibe up the improvements to our incentive structure (though I am trying to do it a bit myself).
The best way to stifle AI growth would be to deprive the labs of capital, and yet these AI safetyists never seem to seriously attack the money side.
It gives away the game entirely, they want regulatory capture and the politicians boosting it want millions in donations from the IPOs, there's big money in this type of AI grifting.
The SEC should heed the AI labs own warnings and forbid any AI lab doing doom marketing from doing an IPO, for safety of course.
Deprive who of capital? The folks behind Deepseek, Kimi, Qwen, etc. or only the likes of Anthropic and OpenAI? You can wipe out the mosquitos around your house but if you don't get the entire neighborhood you may as well not bother.
> The best way to stifle AI growth would be to deprive the labs of capital, and yet these AI safetyists never seem to seriously attack the money side.
That's because you're up against billions if not trillions of dollars desperately searching for any kind of return on investment, and there aren't that many industries left now that China has everyone by the balls.
As much as I'd love to see some enforcement action before the AI bros turn the world into another horror show like 2007ff... it won't happen. And just like we didn't have any meaningful consequences back then, this time the ones responsible (hello Sam Altman) will get away scot-free as well.
Superintelligence by Bostrom came out in 2014, I recommend reading it, at the time I thought it was some of the best sci fi I'd ever consumed, and did not think it would be a public debate within my lifetime. What I find interesting is that respected/knowledgable people have been on TV/Mainstream media saying this for a few years now, Jack Clark has been in front of Congress multiple times. What changed about this particular message that made it so gripping? My little sister msg'd me last night and asked me "Can AI really kill us all? Why can't we just unplug it?". Interesting times....!
I think that more people are finally realizing that the best plan of major AI companies sounds more or less like:
- We'll build an AGI able to perform most cognitive tasks at least at human level (including, of course, the most fulfilling)
- This will wreak havoc in the job market, but people can still compete for jobs requiring physical labor, until robots take also most of these jobs
- Then, we'll build an artificial super-intelligence way smarter than any human, and we'll be forever the pet species of a silicon god operating according to "human values"
- In the process, there's a non-negligible probability that humanity will go extinct
The goal may be to build a super-intelligence, but the plan is incredibly dumb !
I’ve heard many of the AI doomer arguments including Bostrom’s Superintelligence.
But it’s still hard for me to take them seriously. These arguments start with reasonable assumptions and then project them wildly. Current LLMs are powerful and can be used dangerously. It’s reasonable to accept a few tumultuous years of change. But I can’t see them reasonably leading to civilization-ending doom.
Are the doomers within the AI industry overly anxious? Or am I missing something?
I am FAR more afraid of violent AI doomers and malevolent people powered by unaligned AI, than I am of violent (or even just extremely disruptive) AI. Remember Joseph from the movie "Contact"?
I still think that aligning AI is a fool's errand though.
Jacob Coxon is listed as a 2021 fellow on Newspeak House's official site. Media has called Newspeak a hub of "civic hackers" aiming to improve/hack democratic tools and processes.
Rise in energy prices under increasing AI DCs power draw and wasteful usage of clean water in AI DCs cooling are LEAST of my worries regarding AI.
The scale of damage when occurring is what worries me.
Eg. in old times when someone wanted to eavesdrop someones phone they needed ratio of 1:1 in person count, one keeping up the conversation and another one transcripting it up. Then some more people to intrepret that transcript an make conclusions, maybe even decisions what comes next. That is not the reality we leave in today. Today's scale of data processing and storage capabilities makes the ratio of 1:8298979488 (AI:everyone). I don't want us to ever have AI decision making over those transcripts with the same ratio. Possibility seems clearly to be there soon.
Another eg. in old times when someone wanted to dig into vulnerable system they needed ratio of 1:1 in count, one person having time to dig in one system at a time. I don't want to know how many critical and vulnerable systems we have running today in this planet connected to the same network these AI agents are run. Yes, over time you can use AI to find and patch those vulnerabilities but the scale and speed to do harm (exploiting every system at once) is the problem here.
This will either be normal crisis, in which case no point in panicking. Or it is existential, in which case, no point in panicking.
If this turns out to be existential, what would anyone be able to do to prepare? Short of politically controlling territory with a population and militia, any plan is merely some blind bet in it not really being existential and you figuring out what will be safe.
And it's all largely baseless FUD. As someone else said, it's either a tractable challenge, in which case there's no point for alarm, or it's a nontraversable existential challenge, in which case there's no point for alarm. The people who claim it is the latter have no real empirical basis on which to base such an opinion other than simply fearing AND mistrusting the unknown.
My personal opinions (not necessarily reflecting my company's):
1. Free-form capitalism is fundamentally incompatible with AI. In other words, competent AI brings a free-form (low regulation) capitalistic environment to total collapse. (This is actually not my own opinion; heard the details from several economists and it makes sense to me).
2. Hiding from AI will not be an option for long. It will affect many jobs (often by increasing productivity at a macro level; it can reduce some productivity here and there, obviously).
3. The concerns about costs of energy (of the current applications) are short term. Follow major Electrical Engineering conferences to see why. In short, several ideas can drastically reduce the energy / token inference costs (some about 100x). Some existing companies are working on those ideas and at least one has a proof of concept (since 2018) and they raised capital to scale, late in 2025. Of course, once AI inference becomes cheap (in terms of energy per token), more hardware will be doing that, so overall I don't know where the costs will go. That is, new applications might become popular, using overall more tokens and eating through the "moore's law" of Inference energy.
4. The only way to prevent mass NEGATIVE disruption on state / country level is to HOLD THE SITUATION IN HAND and fully and consciously take it toward a good end state. Which needs GENIUS level analysis, insight, and execution, from the administration. Some countries are going to fare this better than the others.
codeddesign | 17 hours ago
tiborsaas | 17 hours ago
warkdarrior | 17 hours ago
bronco21016 | 17 hours ago
The entire interview he's just grinning like he has the "answer" to all these companies he alleges don't take safety seriously.
dgellow | 17 hours ago
Can also be attributed to stress, nervousness no?
dgellow | 17 hours ago
tencentshill | 16 hours ago
qurren | 17 hours ago
I also feel a need to amass retirement levels of wealth right ASAP before this all comes crashing down, and then move to somewhere else away from this mess.
The only good way for me to do that is to keep working in AI, because nothing else that I have skills for pays that high.
atleastoptimal | 16 hours ago
All those who worked in AI still have the money they cashed out on, there might not be another opportunity to obtain generational wealth in such a short time again.
comeonbro | 16 hours ago
You do not feel similarly to the resigning guy if what you are worried about is an economic crash from this not turning out
> move to somewhere else away from this mess
You do not feel similarly to the resigning guy if you think there is anywhere you could move to run away from what you are worried about
qurren | 16 hours ago
My personal view of the modality of failure: I don't think AI will destroy humans, but rather functionally dismantle civilization as we know it; I think we will just increasingly become slaves to the systems they create and the world won't be run in human interests anymore (it already is not run in the bests interest of the non-ultra-wealthy, so it's really just an extension of that: I think the future will just start moving toward s/ultra-wealthy/AI/) and we will increasingly become more like worker ants.
2. I disagree, I think some countries of the world are more likely to value stability of the population than others. I think there are places that are likely to be more safe than others. Also, a notable side effect of current trade wars is that some countries may end up getting left out of a good chunk of the destruction.
comeonbro | 16 hours ago
It's bizarre that your reply was nearly insta-[dead] and I can't reply to it directly.
comrade1234 | 17 hours ago
comeonbro | 17 hours ago
convolvatron | 17 hours ago
comeonbro | 17 hours ago
dgellow | 17 hours ago
bpodgursky | 17 hours ago
I say this neither negatively or positively, it's just that US news is, for now, the only international news, in both tech and politics.
_verandaguy | 16 hours ago
jimbokun | 17 hours ago
orbital-decay | 17 hours ago
ASalazarMX | 16 hours ago
Can you be more specific? This is new to me, but I'm not familiar with Californian history.
unified101 | 16 hours ago
ASalazarMX | 16 hours ago
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Effective_altruism
Edit: Another comment suggests Effective accelerationism.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Effective_accelerationism
Jtsummers | 16 hours ago
It has some interesting ideas, and also gave us people like Sam Bankman-Fried.
lovich | 16 hours ago
Edit: saw the other responses. I don’t think effective altruism was the right answer. Effective accelerationism, which came out of effective altruism, has all the ideas about human extinction and needing to develop AGI at all costs to save the species insanity.
ar_lan | 16 hours ago
AISlopCannon | 16 hours ago
recursive | 17 hours ago
NyxWulf | 17 hours ago
adrianpike | 17 hours ago
fuzzfactor | 17 hours ago
joshstrange | 17 hours ago
prologic | 17 hours ago
Something we all suffer from in this industry !
cynicalsecurity | 17 hours ago
mcast | 17 hours ago
Jtsummers | 16 hours ago
On the former: It kind of makes sense if they think they can convince regulators that they (and maybe a few select competitors) are the only ones who can keep AI in check. Regulation can work in their favor given how well they're established, financially, compared to the small upstarts they need to keep down.
On the latter: I agree, see above. Promoting the idea that AI can or will kill us all, but also that it can't be stopped except by them, puts them in a position (if they're successful in their persuasion) to get more financial benefits.
pessimizer | 17 hours ago
I have yet to see a positive improvement in the world that could be blamed on AI. Why don't they fix the DMVs of the world? The answer is that they would if they could, it would be great PR, but they can't. They can't even operate a phone for the corner drugstore.
I'm bullish on LLMs and they're defeating any optimism I have daily. I should see every program on my computer improving, but they're getting worse. I should see every website getting cleaner while heavy, crappy frameworks put in for developer convenience are being removed and being replaced with feather-light, minimal code and new designs that anticipate my needs. Nope, even getting worse. This is coding, where they're best.
Can somebody tell me anything that AI has improved in my life? The costs are obvious and massive. Just one improvement to hold onto my optimism.
AISlopCannon | 16 hours ago
lovich | 16 hours ago
It’s especially worsened by every leader doing their damndest to force something related to AI into their workflows and products, regardlesss of if it’s a good fit, lest their own leaders or investors decide they are dinosaurs who need to be replaced.
saulpw | 16 hours ago
On the other hand, my personal computer setup is better than it's been in a long time. Other peoples' software that I run has not improved much, but I've managed to fix several long-standing issues by just giving Fable access to my configuration and telling it my intent.
I've also vibe-coded several applications which are lighter-weight versions of things like Pinboard, Descript, and Weechat. I'm not releasing them because I've been doing OSS for 10 years and I've felt first-hand how the economics of open-source is skewed. And in this day and age where anyone can vibe up their own custom app, it doesn't feel worth it anymore.
What this tells me is that there's not proper incentive for the software you use to get "better" according to your values. You have implicit metrics of "cleanliness", "minimalism", "anticipatory design", and I share those values, but having worked as a SWE for 30 years, I have never worked for a corporation which encouraged those values. If I managed to inflict them on the corporate software I created, it was a "yes and" situation and I only did it because I (or other engineers) cared, never because management wanted it.
So the problem is not "AI is failing us" but rather "the system is failing to use these awesome tools to improve our lives". We can use AI to try to improve the system itself, but our system is not a github repo you can deploy to prod. It's a bit trickier to vibe up the improvements to our incentive structure (though I am trying to do it a bit myself).
int32_64 | 16 hours ago
It gives away the game entirely, they want regulatory capture and the politicians boosting it want millions in donations from the IPOs, there's big money in this type of AI grifting.
The SEC should heed the AI labs own warnings and forbid any AI lab doing doom marketing from doing an IPO, for safety of course.
gaoshan | 16 hours ago
mschuster91 | 16 hours ago
That's because you're up against billions if not trillions of dollars desperately searching for any kind of return on investment, and there aren't that many industries left now that China has everyone by the balls.
As much as I'd love to see some enforcement action before the AI bros turn the world into another horror show like 2007ff... it won't happen. And just like we didn't have any meaningful consequences back then, this time the ones responsible (hello Sam Altman) will get away scot-free as well.
neom | 16 hours ago
lf88 | 16 hours ago
- We'll build an AGI able to perform most cognitive tasks at least at human level (including, of course, the most fulfilling)
- This will wreak havoc in the job market, but people can still compete for jobs requiring physical labor, until robots take also most of these jobs
- Then, we'll build an artificial super-intelligence way smarter than any human, and we'll be forever the pet species of a silicon god operating according to "human values"
- In the process, there's a non-negligible probability that humanity will go extinct
The goal may be to build a super-intelligence, but the plan is incredibly dumb !
kidder | 16 hours ago
But it’s still hard for me to take them seriously. These arguments start with reasonable assumptions and then project them wildly. Current LLMs are powerful and can be used dangerously. It’s reasonable to accept a few tumultuous years of change. But I can’t see them reasonably leading to civilization-ending doom.
Are the doomers within the AI industry overly anxious? Or am I missing something?
pmarreck | 16 hours ago
I still think that aligning AI is a fool's errand though.
tmaly | 16 hours ago
enyone | 16 hours ago
The scale of damage when occurring is what worries me.
Eg. in old times when someone wanted to eavesdrop someones phone they needed ratio of 1:1 in person count, one keeping up the conversation and another one transcripting it up. Then some more people to intrepret that transcript an make conclusions, maybe even decisions what comes next. That is not the reality we leave in today. Today's scale of data processing and storage capabilities makes the ratio of 1:8298979488 (AI:everyone). I don't want us to ever have AI decision making over those transcripts with the same ratio. Possibility seems clearly to be there soon.
Another eg. in old times when someone wanted to dig into vulnerable system they needed ratio of 1:1 in count, one person having time to dig in one system at a time. I don't want to know how many critical and vulnerable systems we have running today in this planet connected to the same network these AI agents are run. Yes, over time you can use AI to find and patch those vulnerabilities but the scale and speed to do harm (exploiting every system at once) is the problem here.
huurtehoog | 16 hours ago
If this turns out to be existential, what would anyone be able to do to prepare? Short of politically controlling territory with a population and militia, any plan is merely some blind bet in it not really being existential and you figuring out what will be safe.
pmarreck | 16 hours ago
zingababba | 13 hours ago
honr | 10 hours ago
1. Free-form capitalism is fundamentally incompatible with AI. In other words, competent AI brings a free-form (low regulation) capitalistic environment to total collapse. (This is actually not my own opinion; heard the details from several economists and it makes sense to me).
2. Hiding from AI will not be an option for long. It will affect many jobs (often by increasing productivity at a macro level; it can reduce some productivity here and there, obviously).
3. The concerns about costs of energy (of the current applications) are short term. Follow major Electrical Engineering conferences to see why. In short, several ideas can drastically reduce the energy / token inference costs (some about 100x). Some existing companies are working on those ideas and at least one has a proof of concept (since 2018) and they raised capital to scale, late in 2025. Of course, once AI inference becomes cheap (in terms of energy per token), more hardware will be doing that, so overall I don't know where the costs will go. That is, new applications might become popular, using overall more tokens and eating through the "moore's law" of Inference energy.
4. The only way to prevent mass NEGATIVE disruption on state / country level is to HOLD THE SITUATION IN HAND and fully and consciously take it toward a good end state. Which needs GENIUS level analysis, insight, and execution, from the administration. Some countries are going to fare this better than the others.