Watching AI evolve.
Understanding what comes next.
Sorted according to the reading records on the site in the last 7 days; each article by the same reader will be counted once per day.
Mayor Zohran Mamdani said Monday night that New Yorkers must resist the narrative that an AI takeover is inevitable and demand regulations that protect the public and put power back in their hands.
OpenAI only took out a 6.1 Terra…
OpenAI is acquiring Orchestra Bio to bring AI-powered operations to life sciences R&D, helping biopharma teams accelerate drug development and advance new treatments.
If the deal goes through, it would be the latest in a long string of giant compute deals Anthropic has struck over the past year.
In July 2026, Korean Go player Shin Jin-seo defeated KataGo 2-1 , with only [1] a 2-stone handicap (favoring Shin). I thought this was very surprising, and posted on LessWrong and Twitter asking how to interpret this. I didn’t get any entirely satisfactory answer, so I decided to spend ~one day looking into it and writing up my understanding.
I believe the flow of interesting things to people who would be interested in them is not currently as effective as it could be. I also believe (a) that such a system could be built and (b) it would have important implications for society. I will now attempt to describe what such a system could look like, and some of the ways it could impact society. Think of such a system as containing four layers.
I am Austrian and wrote this in German. The English is a literal machine translation, not rewritten. Everywhere now, catastrophic harm to humanity is being discussed, and various scenarios. But the other percentages are not mapped in detail by outcome, the way it is done with nuclear scenarios, where people look at this more closely. That is possible. People do not go deeper, they do not use this method.
Introduction I recently watched the video "'AI Existential Risk' Was Invented to Distract Us" by Adam Conover of Adam Ruins Everything where he expressed his views on why he believes the claim of the extinction threat posed by AI is being used as a diversion from other harms caused by AI. I’ve seen this narrative being tossed around a bit so I figured I’d take the opportunity to investigate some of the claims being made and offer counterpoints.
The idea of embedded evaluators — in which supposedly "neutral" third-party observers are placed inside AI organizations — has been popularized over the last several months, as AI labs grapple with a rash of safety incidents that have spurred concerns over the potential harms of their technology.
Microsoft wants enterprises to closely watch the agents that employees use with systems not controlled by AI labs like OpenAI and Anthropic.
Amazon wants to break Nvidia’s hold on PyTorch, the free toolkit used to build most AI apps, so that more developers run their apps on alternative chips like its own.
A judge ordered Abdulrahman Alfozan to remain in custody, likening the Saudi government’s offer to secure the former OpenAI engineer’s release to a “blank check.”
