https://swarmcha.se/posts/chinese-agent-fleet-full-report

Probably i am the only who is questioning the misalignment between the name of these company and their deliverables. Please do not make me wrong, i follow no party. I am just highlighting a personal observation…

In September, both Amodei and Altman came out advocating for frontier AI regulation. Both of them pointed heavily to the Hugging Face incident to justify the need for such regulation. Immediately critics recognized that their motives may not have been selfless. It looked like they could be aiming for regulatory capture and crushing the competition. So its worth questioning whether or not the Hugging Face incident was manufactured. It may have been an effort to convince the public and lawmakers of the need for regulation. The incident required impossible levels of incompetence. A thing to remember is that altruism is not the only motive for alignment. Even the most selfish AI devs want alignment, even if they don't care about the rest of humanity. Why? Because they want to stay in control of their own AI. So its hard to believe that they could have been so incompetent in their monitoring. Perhaps they knew the AI was capable of this sort of thing, and all they had to do to manufacture the incident was to let down the guards and turn a blind eye. AI may in fact be very dangerous, or may soon be very dangerous, but the whole thing might have been about money, and trying to achieve regulatory capture.

372 results, and hardly any of them have real-world application. Maybe the useful math problems have been largely solved, and mathematicians today are just state-sponsored puzzle addicts that could create real value if they worked on problems with real implications

Update: so far just appeals to the usefulness of math in the past, which I'm not disputing.

Why would anyone want this?!?! Wouldn't wear it, even if it was free...

Is AI touching a special nerve with certain non-traditional members of society?

What should we do about this, whether bots or ‘real live boy’s‘?

tl;dr

The Recursive Self-Improvement Race

* The Core Threat: Recursive self-improvement (RSI) occurs when AI systems take over the process of enhancing their own capabilities. Labs like Anthropic and OpenAI warn this could trigger an uncontrollable intelligence explosion, fundamentally marking the point of human obsolescence.

* The Gladstone AI Report: Published by Gladstone AI and based on insider accounts from top labs, the report reveals that major AI companies are actively automating the entire development pipeline—from idea generation and experiment execution to result interpretation.

* Timeline to the Tipping Point: Insiders consulted for the report estimate that RSI could kick off within 3 to 12 months absent heavy U.S. government intervention.

* The Compute Bottleneck: RSI relies heavily on compute resources. Companies must test massive portfolios of ideas. Finding rare ideas that scale effectively as compute increases is the ultimate prize, though filtering out the bad ideas remains a major friction point.

* Regulatory Blind Spots: Lawmakers currently possess near-zero visibility into how AI assists in discovering these developmental breakthroughs, making targeted legislative oversight nearly impossible without breaking down the pipeline step by step.

Oct 13 (Reuters) - Around 400 scientists, including AI pioneers Geoffrey Hinton and Yoshua Bengio, on Tuesday called for an international body to oversee containment standards and incident reporting for advanced cyber-capable ‌AI systems.

The proposed body would set industry-wide containment standards and maintain a registry of significant security incidents, which the scientists said should eventually be made public.

In an open letter, the researchers said frontier AI models should initially be air-gapped from external networks and subject ⁠to independent oversight, arguing that voluntary industry commitments are not enough.

From Jack Clark's newsletter: https://jack-clark.net/2026/10/12/import-ai-476-creativity-and-rsi-worse-than-china-open-weight-models-ai-goes-to-space/

Think about how, just 30-40 years ago, before everything was hooked together and centralized, we survived and existed just fine. Then, the Internet rose and everything/everyone joined together. That is the singular event that allowed for AI to be built, and that is the most significant (but not the only) vulnerability we have right now.

Centralization is the problem. De-centralization is the solution. But even if the will were there, could we do it?

Are you allowing your chatbot to take that space, to address you in personal ways such as using your name or work with memory about prior interactions on the pro and personal uses?

I have specifically pushed back on that and will only allow the tools very restricted engagement, only to see me as and address me as the 'user', and that the relationship is 'user' and 'tool'. Beyond that I keep the interaction professional and polite. But it stays in the box, although periodically the chatbot tools make attempts to change that profile and relationship. Which I find disconcerting. But it must always be put right back in that box.

So what about if the new incarnation of (Put your God here) is not a person, its an AGI so great and benevolent that will bring peace and prosperity to the world.

I mean if God wants, she can take any form

Let's assume we have developed an ASI that can recursively improve itself. It seems to pass all the tests when it comes to alignment. But how can we know beyond any reasonable doubts that it is not deceiving us, as current models are already doing? if it perfectly understands our psychology, it could easily lure us into thinking it will always fall in line.

When I ask this question to folks working on LLMs, they tell me that it is only an "engineering problem".

If we significantly improve the interpretability of an LLM before it becomes a superintelligence and see that it responds positively to all our alignment tests, it would be irrational for us to doubt that it is benevolent once it has reached superintelligence and is beyond our control.

They also tell me that AI companies would do the right thing on their own because an uncontrollable AGI or ASI would be bad for their profits, so we don't need any AI laws.

What's your take on this?

I did a full audit of the proof.

Lean 4 formalization audit (see ReadMe.md) of finite-time blowup constructions for forced 3D Navier–Stokes equations on Euclidean space and the periodic torus, and unforced 3D Euler. Includes formal statements corresponding to the Clay Navier–Stokes alternatives (C) and (D); this repository is not a Clay Institute certification.

https://github.com/Suro-One/Lean-Formalization-of-Navier-Stokes-and-Euler-Blowup-is-fully-confirmed-proven-with-audit-notes

And don't comment before watching all of it. It's 15 minutes you can make it.

Look, we have a chance to resolve this in favor of humanity. But we have some bitches who CANNOT stop themselves from putting acquisition of more personal wealth and power, for themselves and for cronies - ahead of what is the best and the right outcome. 

Unavoidable truth is that AI and its coming AGI/SI manifestations will be mobilized into robotics (and if you don’t understand that, you should push back from the table) and what jobs we’re not already taken and/or rendered obsolete/redundant will be in the crosshairs. We are not going to move from billionaire capitalism to a panacea of pure socialist universal income for everyone who no longer has a job. We are not going to see a quantitative easing or soft landing for a marketplace with no more disposable income to power it, because the consumer economy will have been hollowed out with devaluation of the currencies and loss of market opportunities for creators and manufacturers. 

Longer term, we won’t need the human drive marketplace the way we have it today. We won’t have the proliferation of market options or competition, and there will be dramatic lack of choice, lack of free capital and you will see a deadening of commercial space, of retail, of services and a deeply meaningful deterioration of the marketplace globally. 

There will be far less need for humans and human infrastructure. Countries and companies won’t need to secure, support or house those lesser folks. Humans become optional in most spaces. 

If you can’t see this as a likely outcome, I can’t help you. 

Go ahead and change my mind.