Dean Ball’s name rings a bell to me. Emile Torres wrote an article on him its pretty standard OpenAI exec stuff (that is being a wacko high off his own tech)

“please forgive me for spreading sinophobic propaganda for bailouts i have a baby :((“

Oh no every day sneerclub teaches me about a new guy.

I’ve been aware of Faggella for a while (entirely against my will) he’s got an interview with Yud on his podcast which contains this all-timer quote:

”If sacrificing all of humanity were the only way, and a reliable way, to get … godlike things out there — superintelligences who still care about each other, who are still aware of the world and having fun — I would ultimately make that trade-off.”

Climate activists pelt AI data centres with acid balloons

GOOD FOR THEM

full AI communism

LMFAOOOOOO

for frame of reference, this is the kind of stuff he tweets

Daniel Faggella has found the old SneerClub and here too

ah sweet horrors that are perfectly in my comprehension. what the fuck

Elongated Muskrat looses 1 trillion in under a month

Tech execs are now travelling with bodyguards due to AI backlash great quote at the end:

“That’s why people are setting warehouses on fire,” a former Pinterest employee named Bonnie Kate Wolf, who was laid off during an AI-focused restructuring, told the WSJ. “You can’t go back to serfdom. It really feels like the people in power want to be kings. Historically, that doesn’t work out for kings.”

Always has been

Was unsure if I was gonna post this but might as well. A letter about AI job losses has dropped its very short but has 200 signatures already (most of which are familiar names around here like Jack Clark) this article goes over it

A double whammy: New York has become the first state to ban data centres and A Majority of Americans Now Support Seizing Wealth From AI Industry

(ported over from previous thread)

So I managed to find some more of the AI 2027 author’s opinions on their predictions after a bit of poking around, I’ll let this snippet speak for itself

EDIT: in several comments below, AI 2027 co-authors Daniel Kokotajlo and Eli Lifland provide clarifications and corrections to what I’ve written here. Uplift – the extent to which AI tools are accelerating AI R&D progress – is indeed well short of where the AI 2027 scenario predicts. However, the authors do believe they were on track regarding the rate at which uplift would progress; they merely have adjusted their view of where things stood in early 2025. So uplift is indeed short of the AI 2027 scenario, but may now be advancing at the predicted pace, just from a delayed starting point. And frontier AI lab revenue is in fact ahead of AI 2027’s predictions; the 80% figure I’m citing here, which is labeled “economic value” in the linked report, turns out to reflect company valuations in addition to revenue. Finally, valuations have jumped since the 80% figure was computed and are now “about on trend”. Daniel and Eli provided some other clarifications as well, see their comments.]

their full comments are here

So I managed to find some more of the AI 2027 author’s opinions on their predictions after a bit of poking around, I’ll let this snippet speak for itself

EDIT: in several comments below, AI 2027 co-authors Daniel Kokotajlo and Eli Lifland provide clarifications and corrections to what I’ve written here. Uplift – the extent to which AI tools are accelerating AI R&D progress – is indeed well short of where the AI 2027 scenario predicts. However, the authors do believe they were on track regarding the rate at which uplift would progress; they merely have adjusted their view of where things stood in early 2025. So uplift is indeed short of the AI 2027 scenario, but may now be advancing at the predicted pace, just from a delayed starting point. And frontier AI lab revenue is in fact ahead of AI 2027’s predictions; the 80% figure I’m citing here, which is labeled “economic value” in the linked report, turns out to reflect company valuations in addition to revenue. Finally, valuations have jumped since the 80% figure was computed and are now “about on trend”. Daniel and Eli provided some other clarifications as well, see their comments.]

Happy Two Years, everyone!!! one month late, but we’ve officially made it over halfway through 2026 and the only “plague” has been people gaslighting everyone into believing hantavirus would be the next covid

Tech Bros Puzzled by Why AI Hasn’t “Massively Disrupted” Books Yet

In one since-deleted thread posted on the Reddit forum r/singularity, an AI aficionado posed what they clearly thought was a brilliant question: “why hasn’t AI text generation massively disrupted books yet, when it’s technically capable?”. “Language and writing are the strongest abilities of LLMs, since they’re LLMs,” the user continued. “And yet, people are still reading human made books. Why is that?”. “Just ask the LLM to write you the sequel to your favorite [H]arry [P]otter novel, and it will,” they enthused.

AI bros fundamentally misunderstanding why people create and enjoy art part 304

Apple sues OpenAI over leaking their secrets

Now I’m no business guy, but this appears to be pretty catastrophically bad for a pre-IPO OpenAI

This has now been made its own post

Should’ve left in the full footnote:

”The AI 2027 scenario is still roughly what we expect the future to look like: a mad scramble to superintelligence leading to either AI takeover or extreme concentration of power. So far reality is tracking closer to AI 2027 than even we expected. (2027 was our modal year at time of publication, not our median.) You can read more about our views on timelines here and here.”

So yeah you’re bang on the money. Funny how they went on a press tour hyping up Kokotajlo as a forecaster and claiming that dismissing AI 2027 as hype was a “grave mistake” to “yeah we did not expect for it to follow our predictions” and still being slower than what they predicted

Piggybacking off myself to say that the way they wrote the update on their 2025 review is weird. I’m assuming that they mean 2025 was 65% pace but 2026 crept up to 75%, but the way they wrote it makes me think that they actually meant to say “we originally thought 2025 was 65%, but new data shows it was actually 75%” which would be odd, I’m still assuming the former since it makes more sense to me (they also drop it with zero elaboration like, what metric increased with this new data since this was an overall % of pace? not to mention the real percentage was 58-66% based off their means and medians so it would actually look like 58-76% pace)

I mean no matter which way you spin it we’re still going slower than AI 2027, so hooray

(turned this into a second comment so they first one wouldn’t be a wall of text)