I think too much, but sometimes it comes in handy.
"Any pronouns" in my case means "surprise me".
I don't click Substack links.
Profile picture adapted from art by Don Cabanza.
New: Mayor Zohran Mamdani and a group of his friends have been secretly using the NYPD Police Academy’s gymnasium in Queens to play pickup basketball — scrambling some operations at the facility.
w/ @grahamrayman.bsky.social & Joe Anuta www.politico.com/news/2026/10...
I *believe* people when they say You Can See Everything is extremely good, but it's always weird to hear how good a documentary is. They always sound boring on paper. And then somehow they're not.
"these guys are studying wine and are gonna take a test on it"
"who wrote the Disney Channel theme?"
and evidently
"we hung out with someone who defrauded investors"
are all premises for really compelling documentaries
Eagles QB Jalen Hurts, who is out for the season after several blood clots were revealed in his lungs.
Before the London game, Hurts was in the hospital until 4 am and did not sleep because sleep was a risk. He played the game without having slept. Crazy.
"is AI conscious?" is a question we should figure out how to answer. unfortunately this requires deep expertise in machine learning AND philosophy of mind. I keep seeing people with middling to advanced knowledge of only one of those subjects opining. arrogant as hell, know your limits.
if you have an answer other than "I don't know because what the fuck even is consciousness" then about 3000 years of philosophers may wish to speak with you
not a huge fan of declarations of "LLMs are conscious" because that is basically the same as the "LLMs are not conscious" argument right now. i like having spicy takes and all but that one feels counter productive
THE IDEA THAT MACHINES COULD FEEL PAIN CERTAINLY SEEMS UNINTUITIVE BUT IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY EVIDENCE OR EVEN A FRAMEWORK FOR UNDERSTANDING CONSCIOUSNESS IT WOULD BE EPISTEMICALLY ARROGANT TO TAKE ANY SORT OF FIRM STANCE ONE WAY OR ANOTHER
A strong stance of "AI thinks" or "AI doesn't think" requires a clear definition of "thinking" and a strong argument for why that definition is correct for thinking things besides AI (like humans). Arguments from intuition aren't enough here.
A strong stance of "AI thinks" or "AI doesn't think" requires a clear definition of "thinking" and a strong argument for why that definition is correct for thinking things besides AI (like humans). Arguments from intuition aren't enough here.
"I didn't do that, the agent did" is one of a small handful of things I will actually scold my team for saying. It should be very embarrassing for DHH that he said this publicly.
boyfriend: Did you ever end up checking out that thing i told you about
girlfriend: what ?
boyfriend: Zebras
girlfriend: oh
boyfriend: Did you check it out?
girlfriend: i already kind of knew about zebras
boyfriend: Oh
boyfriend: Do you think maybe you should brush up though
lol my flight got diverted because of a medical emergency and they landed us in reykjavik in the middle of the night and deplaned us and sent us through passport control and then the crew vanished and then british airways sent us links to book an overnight hotel room but for a hotel at heathrow
“If you are staring at an example of social disorder or social inefficiency, and the left refuses to explain either why it has happened or how they will fix it, then the right gets to point at someone in the immediate area and say, ‘That’s who did it.’”
crazy how much Mamdani speaks my language
RE: the broader point, he's making a lot of sense, but it does sound like something in need of careful balancing against addressing structural and systemic problems. This thinking can easily justify an excessive focus on low hanging fruit.
I frankly don't care if AI "understands" anything. Give me a useful definition of that term – not just one that logically coheres, but one that is actually *applicable* to reach important conclusions – and then I might care.
It's that time of month where we need to ask for money. We need $500 for our portion of rent and $300 for other expenses, $800 total.
Donate here:
C: cash.app/$deathpigeon
V: venmo.com/u/Zara-Storm
P: paypal.me/deathpigeon
Please help how you can Thank you.
#TransCrowdFund#DisabilityCrowdFund
Rationalists warn us that, if you give AI a goal, it will ignore all unstated moral rules in pursuit of that goal. It's willing to kill to make paperclips.
But then they endorse a moral philosophy with exactly the same failure modes! They themselves are the paperclip maximizers they warn us about!
Nick Beckstead, noted longtermist and "effective altruist,” just comes out and says it:
"But it now seems more plausible to me that saving a life in a rich country is substantially more important than saving a life in a poor country, other things being equal."
Utilitarianism is *notorious* for having these problems. Do they not see that, by following their premises to whatever unsavory conclusions may follow, and accepting those conclusions instead of using them to challenge the premises, they're literally acting like AI?
I'm not/have never been a rationalist, and my safety worries are primarily of the form "you'd best be careful what you ask of the wish-granting genie", but I'm really not a fan of using character assassination (and dare I say: some slutshaming) to promptly dismiss the ideas they're associated with
Individual responsibility at a large scale is one of the most nonsensical, denialist pillars of contemporary liberalism. If the voting base has a significant contingent of "Bernie or bust" voters, the smart move is to acknowledge and confront that reality.
You do not solve any problem by shaming en masse. If millions of people believe something, it is not because of a whim that will change because you wagged your finger at them.
Over six months, we tracked the appearance of child sexual abuse material on X. We found images from the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children's database, which is considered one of the most highly vetted and which many tech companies block on upload. www.nytimes.com/2026/09/11/t...
me: hi gimme a large pizza
pizza guy: any appetizers?
me: what do you have?
pizza guy: we've got fried cheese with no sauce or crust, crust with no cheese or sauce, and crust and cheese with no sauce
me: gimme crust and cheese with no sauce
pizza guy: and for your dip?
me: sauce
The person saying AI may well kill us is working in alignment and safety. This is exactly the work they *should* be doing if they believe that. Saying that person shouldn't make AI is not a sensible response, because that's not what that person does.
"changes the nature of humanity" was a weird claim and rightfully criticized, but credit where due on knowing exactly how to react to the criticism that overreaches
There are some rumors, some allegations, that I got the chosis. The AI psychosis. Let me just put those to bed:
Do I use agentic coding for everything now? Yes
Do I think LLMs can be useful for a ton of great things? Yes
I have the chosis yes that’s what I’m getting at
A strong stance of "AI thinks" or "AI doesn't think" requires a clear definition of "thinking" and a strong argument for why that definition is correct for thinking things besides AI (like humans). Arguments from intuition aren't enough here.
If you go into the agora shouting that you have the answer to this hotly debated question, then in my kinder moments I hope that you meet a Socrates, and in my meaner moments I hope you meet a Diogenes.
If you want to dip your toes into the philosophical quagmire with "I think X, and here's why", that's great! Beginners should think and reason, not only listen! But when you mistake your ill-informed opinion for settled fact, you're just asking to be humiliated.
I don't understand why people aren't capable of just writing exactly what an image shows for their alt text. What does a viewer need to notice to understand the point of the image? Just describe that.
As a personal policy I don't share inaccessible content (unless it *cannot* be made accessible) and it is just astonishing how often I see someone take the time to write useless alt text
I just saw "a bunch of French people goof[ing] around" as a description of an image of an execution by guillotine. This is a joke, not a description. Someone who can't see the image will be left out of this joke.
Age verification makes everyone less safe.
Age verification makes everyone less safe.
Age verification makes everyone less safe.
Age verification makes everyone less safe.
Age verification makes everyone less safe.
Age verification makes everyone less safe.
so unfair that you might be attacked for just wanting a white ethnostate
anyway after like a decade plus of usage i canceled my @1password.bsky.social subscription and switched to apple passwords. took 15 minutes.