> This broke a hundred-year drought

> A few days later, Donald Trump won the 2016 presidential election

It's not a 100% gold standard RCT or whatever...

> they would be perfectly capable of keeping it just between themselves and not putting out press releases about it.

In some jurisdictions there are legal requirements about disclosing cybersecurity incidents, and it's a well-established best practice even where there aren't. Beyond that, HuggingFace appears to have put out a press release about this before they knew this was a rogue OpenAI model: https://huggingface.co/blog/security-incident-july-2026

Of course, if it's all a big conspiracy, perhaps they were just not saying what they knew in order to help OpenAI's marketing later. Or it never happened at all, or whatever.

I do disagree that this is good PR, but I don't see the point in having that argument here--I just want to correct straightforward misinformation.

You state this as fact--how do you know it? OpenAI isn't publicly traded. On Hiive OpenAI is marginally down in July: https://www.hiive.com/securities/openai-stock

The question is whether this is a bubble that's going away - whether "AI will just be turned off". A revenue trajectory indicating a vast increase in actual consumer/enterprise usage every year indicates otherwise. This is true regardless of whether or not forward-looking investment becomes too much at some point. If CSPs or AI labs have bought more compute than they can sell at current prices, maybe they'll go bust, but at that point supply and demand mean compute and therefore AI inference becomes much cheaper, which is unlikely to make it go away.

METR's concern makes most sense if it's about the inability to measure a consistent trend over time, not about the validity of the study for the population that participated.

Zitron has been predicting an imminent bubble pop since 2023 (although in less and less falsifiable terms), as OpenAI and Anthropic revenues have steadily grown 3-10x per year, but people keep listening. Zitron has done a lot to misinform the public but at some point you have to conclude it's demand-driven, and people won't re-evaluate his credibility because he tells them what they want to hear.

Useful: https://www.theargumentmag.com/p/ais-biggest-critic-has-lost...

METR reran the study early this year and, while they caveat it, this time they found a speedup, which is consistent with subjective estimates of productivity also having increased -- the simplest explanation is that subjective estimates exaggerate, but there's still a speedup with current models: https://metr.org/blog/2026-02-24-uplift-update/#wider-adopti...

(Nobody seems to cite the followup since it's not such a fun counterintuitive finding.)

Actually, stronger - it's valid in some circumstances to say something is infeasible to precisely to define and you'll just know it when you see it. But I don't think it's reasonable to take that stance and then assert that "anyone sound of mind who knows how an LLM works" must agree with what you see. You gotta pick between striving for rigor and denying your opponents' soundness of mind.

It's reasonable to doubt that LLMs are a path to AGI, but I don't understand how this is still a matter of dispute in 2026. What's your definition of intelligence that doesn't cover an entity that can translate fluently between dozens of languages and also solve open problems in mathematics? And be real-if you have one, is it a definition you or anyone would have given a decade ago, or are we doing "god of the gaps"?

Who is this supposed to be arguing with? It sort of reads like it's trying to disparage "effective altruism", but I'm not sure.

Setting aside any of the AI stuff, I've started to find it pretty grating when people seem to imply that transferring millions of dollars from wealthy people in California and the UK to impoverished Kenyans and Rwandans, or buying malaria bednets which can save a child's life for the cost of a fancy new gaming rig, is "self-serving" or something because weirdos are doing it, while true caring for other people involves [unspecified thing that doesn't appear to ask any material sacrifice comparable to donating a large percentage of income].

This is very much not what the linked case established.

If the logic is that people who are born somewhere else shouldn't have any agency over immigration laws, well, why does someone who lives in some town in my country with a negligible immigrant population get a say in who I and my colleagues can invite to work with us, and who I and my neighbors can invite to live with us?

She also says:

> What I am trying to do... is to help people understand what these systems actually are

Can a phrase that has no empirical content aid people in understanding an empirical phenomenon?

> the astonishing willingness of so many to... turn to synthetic text... for all kinds of weighty decisions.

Why is this astonishing, if the nature of these models as "stochastic parrots" places no limitations whatosever on their empirical capabilities, reliability, etc?

> the field of linguistics is particularly relevant in this moment, as a linguist’s eye view on language technology is desperately needed to help make wise decisions about how we do and don’t use these products

Is it wise to make decisions about a product on the basis of information that has no relevance to how it is actually likely to behave?

(It may be, if one has ethical concerns with "data theft, the exploitative labor practices", etc -- but one could have such concerns about any kind of product, not just a "stochastic parrot", and linguists are not generally academia's experts on, e.g., labor practices.)

I think this argument proves too much. Historically energy shocks have led to recessions, and in recessions the stock market usually doesn't go up. And the US economy is certainly exposed to global recession regardless of whether we're a net exporter of fossil fuels.

But also, even if bust is business as usual in the big picture and not a social disaster long term, it's of course not what individual investors want for their particular current investments.

The stock market keeps going up in the face of the indefinite closure of Hormuz. We're investing in datacenters at a scale that only makes sense if AI capabilities continue to advance to the point where they surpass most humans at most white collar tasks, if not reach superintelligence.

And what are the possible outcomes?

- Bust. We've come away with a useful tool but the hundreds of billions of capital expenditure were thrown away on a pipe dream.

- Success! We're the dog that's caught the car. Then what? Currently the political debate is, to caricature only slightly, between "oh no the datacenters will use more water than golf courses" and "lol what are you going to do, regulate matrix multiplication?". How the hell are we going to cope with introducing a new intelligent species?

Either way, it sure seems like we're collectively operating more in the interests of the future AI than in the interests of humanity. What is this, if not a sort of psychosis?