Dan Brickley @danbri

@artopiumcom @Karen18096365 Clicks

@dajobe Aw, even I did property paths (he says, leaning heavily on code he’s not entirely read…)

@DickHardt @vtahowe @insecureagents @KeycardLabs I should’ve used more smilies

@Ek24415 @egrefen @Keir_Starmer @Conservatives Is there any evidence the public are even aware of those legislative changes?

Everyone in higher-ed is focused on detecting AI writing. Bad news. That's not the real problem. Here's the real problem, and it's much, MUCH harder to solve. I assign my students a research topic, let's say in my Religion and Medicine class. "Find an illness where two different metaphors shape how institutions address it. Describe how those metaphors work, and then argue for one of them as better." The problem isn't students writing their paper with AI. Instead, they copy-paste the prompt into AI, and then ask for five possible topics. AI spits them out. Then they paste in my syllabus, my name. They ask which of the topics would be most attractive to me, and best fit the themes of the class. AI picks one. Then they ask AI to write them a detailed outline of a possible paper, and give them the citations. They check the citations to make sure they are all accurate. And then? They write the paper themselves, using all of that as a template. The cognitive labor, the search, the process of figuring out what you believe and why? That was all outsourced. And that's the important part! The writing? That's just icing on the cake.

Introducing Sakana Fugu: A full multi-agent orchestration system accessible via a single model API. Our ‘Fugu Ultra’ model matches the performance of Fable and Mythos, delivering frontier capability without the risk of export controls. Try it: sakana.ai/fugu 🐡

@nealagarwal Very nice! Btw a friend mentioned it’s hard to get more info on the image on desktop since the url appears during mouseover, and clicking it requires the mouse not mouseovering the image.

The interaction between AI & past scholarly work is going to get weird. Here I gave GPT-5.5 Pro a copy of my first published paper from grad school & asked it to find errors and update it. It found new data, analyzed it, created reproducible files, extended the key argument...

keyboard_arrow_left Previous keyboard_arrow_right Next

@dioscuri Reminds me I didn’t read global.oup.com/academic/produ… yet, … but how does evolution score on these fronts?

🚨 Hugely impactful AI security roles🚨 AI is the central question for our domestic and national security; the @AISecurityInst amongst the best global places for public impact on it. ~24 hours left to apply to be Director or Chief Research Officer. Join us!👇 Director: civilservicejobs.service.gov.uk/csr/index.cgi?… Chief Research Officer: civilservicejobs.service.gov.uk/csr/index.cgi?…

I was wrong about the Midjourney ultra-sound scanner. Well, maybe not wrong, but at a minimum I missed something obvious because I was thinking like a doctor who's been practicing for 25 years. And I didn't explain my point well. First, where I was wrong: All historical precendent that showed that widespread screening imaging is net neutral or harmful was imaging that was expensive, inconvenient, gated by physicians and couldn't practically be repeated frequently short term. If the Midjourney ultrasound is high resolution, harmless, inexpensive and convenient, people can get an initial scan, then if there are abnormalities concerning for cancer, they can get weekly follow up scans to see if it's growing/changing, and if it's not, they can leave it alone. In retrospect, that is obvious but it never occurred to me. Now, you'd assume that that approach would have to lead to it being useful and saving lives, and it probably will. But we won't really know it does until we have a couple years of data. Lots of things that seem obvious in medicine end up being wrong once we collect data. Second, what I didn't explain well: It's not that I think non-doctors are 'too dumb' to use the results effectively. Its that historically it was literally impossible to use the results effectively, and that is super, super counterintuitive. It seems obvious that finding stuff early is beneficial, but experience has shown that it isn't. Here's why: The vast majority of abnormalities (i.e. possible cancer) isn't cancer - like over 90% of them, ends up being harmless - something thay your body could have handled on it's own. But the only way to find out was to have invasive, risky procedures to biopsy or remove what was found. And overall, the side effects from all the risky, invasive procedures to track down the over 90% of stuff that was harmless equal or outweigh the benefit from removing the less than 10% of stuff that wasn't harmless. If the MIdjourney device can be repeated frequently, like weekly, at a low cost and is harmless, it could negate the need for the risky, invasive procedures. Not saying it will, but it seems like it could and I confidently posted yesterday that it was a bad idea. I was wrong to confidently post that.

Matthew Zirwas, MD @MattZirwas

5 days ago

I usually agree with Dr. Locasale. But not on this. A $100 full-body ultrasound on asymptomatic people, sold as a wellness service, will open a massive can of financial worms for individuals. You’ll pay around $100 for the scan, there’s a 90% chance they find something you’ll

61 19 196 306K 79

Yeah it’s always easier to talk about other companies. And if you work for a publicly traded company (or one headed that way) there’s a load more stuff you could trip over accidentally. One persons memey shitpost is anothers’ market manipulation attempt… Also complaining about colleagues work on X feels mean since I could raise most things more helpfully internally

Excited to share our recent work: Free-Range Gaussians 🥚✨ The core idea: instead of predicting Gaussians on a pixel- or voxel-aligned grid, we let them live freely in 3D space. 🌐 Project: free-range-gaussians.github.io 📝 Paper: arxiv.org/abs/2604.04874

@AndyMasley We could eat them to gain their wisdom

@deepfates A good honest smoke test?

Even before Mythos I was getting asked more and more what Anthropic's deal is, and why tf they're acting the way they're acting if they believe what they say they believe. The best answer I can give is that their basic worldview is something like: 1. There are giant, dangerous monsters in the forest 2. We see others going out and making loud noises that will rouse the monsters, and they're not going to stop because of all the treasure and magical artifacts that can be found in the forest 3. We believe the best way we can help is to send out our own vanguard to go faster and farther into the forest than everyone else, because we'll spend a ton on monster containment and taming and we'll also send back detailed reports of what monsters we're finding so that the townspeople can ready themselves, which those other guys won't do On the one hand I understand how they got there, and I think it's possible they're basically right. On the other hand it's not hard to see why this approach makes people wonder if you're crazy or lying or both.

@VictorTaelin I assumed they weren’t worried about beings of pure reason and light. Rather the kind of false alarms that swamped opensource security last year, before the technology matured…?

@stevekrouse Like realising red and white wine taste of … wine-flavoured temperature. Ok a bit apocryphal but sciencesnopes.blogspot.com/2013/05/about-… still resonates for me!