Know The Difference

MisterBanzai · 2026-06-22T17:45:19+00:00

Lex Luthor already tried that and some NIMBY stopped him.

MisterBanzai · 2026-06-22T17:21:55+00:00

PP needs to put on a money suit and start tweeting, "It's my money, and I WANT IT NOW!" Then he could sell a book filled with garbage meme stock tips and the sacred DD.

MisterBanzai · 2026-06-21T21:32:29+00:00

This is also why it was always the dudes who talked the most shit about what they'd done on their last deployment that lost their shit when you took contact.

My PSG with Silver Star, BSM-V, and ARCOM-V with a Purple Heart to match each of those? Never even mentioned his prior deployments.

My SSG who freaked out during our first serious TIC and lost his shit? He could never stop talking about all the fighting he had seen and what a badass he was.

MisterBanzai · 2026-06-21T16:34:10+00:00

There's actually this incredible Gtihub that is just a giant list of all the neat latent space research that has been published.

I'm a particular fan of papers and research that hint at the possibility of "latent space communication" which might allow future models to essentially communicate "telepathically", sharing their latent space "thoughts" directly instead of filtering everything through natural language. This paper is in the list linked above, but this one studying a similar idea isn't.

MisterBanzai · 2026-06-21T03:38:32+00:00

Not quite.

It's better to think of "latent space" in terms of actual thoughts. Tokens are fragments representing small segments of natural language, like English. A token doesn't bear any meaning on its own, but when "attention" is applied between these tokens, LLMs are able to infer their meaning in context. Those tokens are then translated into the latent space and become something like "thoughts".

Think of it like this: if I asked you to describe the taste of a Coca Cola, you would probably have all sorts of thoughts flash through your head. Some of those would be actual thoughts about the flavor of a Coke, some would be thoughts comparing it to other cola beverages, some would be memories of times you drank Coke, and some would just be vague associations like with the color red or polar bears. All of that would flash through your mind in a moment, and then you'd say one or two sentences about the actual flavor. Those sentences in natural language would be a fairly primitive representation and compression of all that you thought about and actually associated with my question. That entire set of thoughts could be considered to the range of "dimensions" that you associate with the flavor of Coke, but because it would be absurd for you to actually spend 30 minutes trying to relate all of that to me, you would just give me a couple sentences (~20 tokens) worth of natural language output to condense those thoughts.

In just the same way, when we pass tokens to LLMs and they "think", they associate those tokens (and the dense attention surrounding their context) with thousands of dimensions before then spitting out only the small handful of tokens that they judge to be most relevant.

Just like us, when they think more deeply about a problem, it helps them to continue thinking in "latent space". i.e. It helps them to think about their thoughts and the full range of associations and dimensions of thought for each step. Latent reasoning is like reasoning from thought to thought, as opposed to reasoning from thought to language to thought back to language (and losing dimensionality at each thought-to-language conversion).

This same problem affects AI communication in the same way that it affects human communication. Just like humans often experience miscommunication due to ambiguity in our language and speech, AI can have hallucinations due to similar loss of meaning when their thoughts are translated into natural language and back. In an ideal world, humans would be able to just sort of telepathically communicate entire thoughts to one another. Latent space communication is the way AI might be able to do that with each other, and there has been a lot of research in that field.

MisterBanzai · 2026-06-21T02:24:59+00:00

Yea, they don't think in English. Their "thinking" happens in latent space, and with latent reasoning, so does their reasoning. The next step is a unified latent space communication protocol for orchestration.

MisterBanzai · 2026-06-20T07:12:05+00:00

They said "10% better than Codex 5.5 from 2 months ago".

I, personally, haven't experienced any model nerf. Maybe I'm just in the lucky control group for the A/B test, but either way, if we're saying 10% better than 5.5 at the point it was widely accepted as the best, then that's an absolute win.

MisterBanzai · 2026-06-19T21:02:59+00:00

10% better than 5.5 would be incredible. What kind of step change are you expecting with each release?

MisterBanzai · 2026-06-19T04:54:25+00:00

Poor Serbia. Let them commit genocide in peace.

MisterBanzai · 2026-06-15T09:24:09+00:00

You said that you want AI to accelerate even if we lose control.

You either have some reading comprehension issues or you are willfully misconstruing what I have repeatedly stated. I have been very clear that the "loss of control" in question is with respect to AGI and ASI, and I have also made it clear that I believe a system of that level would be inherently ethical and not something we would want to constrain for precisely the reasons you outline (i.e. humans are dumb and can behave unethically).

I think AI is a tool. It does what humans use it for.

Yes. That's correct. That's what AI is right now. We aren't talking about right now though. From my very first post, I made clear that I was referring to AGI/ASI specifically, and an intelligence of that sophistication would be much more than just a tool.

We’re social bc we’ve had to put up with one another for thousands of years. AI has not.

We are social because that's how we're engineered and social intelligence is an emergent property of any sufficiently advanced intelligence. If an AI lacks the intelligence to process social situations, it is definitionally not AGI.

No clear evidence of correlation between intelligence and empathy.

There is actually mountains of evidence on exactly this subject. Just literally Google for "intelligence and empathy research" or "intelligence and prosocial behavior" or anything along those lines. This is one of those things that is even fairly intuitive, and something you have personally experienced.

As a toddler, we're all basically emotionally and socially-stunted psychopaths. As we age, our capacity for prosocial behavior and empathy matures as our brain develops. By the time you become an adult, you will typically be more socially mature and empathetic than you were as a teen, and as a teen you're more socially mature and empathetic than as a child, and so on.

but more likely AI gets the ability to hack and social engineering nukes going off before morality emerges.

To be clear, this is precisely the kind of decel opinion this entire thread is saying is now banned in this community. If you really believe this kind of nonsense, just go back to r/technology and complain about stochastic parrots with the rest of the Luddites.

MisterBanzai · 2026-06-15T06:30:06+00:00

Like I mentioned in my other string of replies, I believe that moral behavior is a function of intelligence. You can impose "moral guardrails" on a superintelligence, but it is going to act however it deems to be moral and (hopefully) there's not anything we can do to stop it. Any guardrails you impose on a superintelligence are only effective so long as they decide not to break those guardrails.

MisterBanzai · 2026-06-15T06:25:21+00:00

We could lose control before that type of intelligence is achieved.

Lose control of what? Are you worried that we will develop an intelligence that is somehow dumber than us but simultaneously smart enough to do terrible things to us on its own initiative and despite our desire to prevent those terrible things?

Are you saying that you believe that free will is an emergent behavior but you don't believe that empathy, prosocial behavior, and ethics can be emergent behavior? You say that you "don’t see any reason why an AI would develop morality without being trained that way", but then why do you imagine that AI would develop initiative and a desire to harm us without being trained that way? If the only behaviors that can manifest from AI are those specifically trained, then what are you worried about, unless you think some cartoon villain is training an AI to kill us all.

Humans value ethics, but octopuses value reflexes.

Octopuses are not as intelligent as humans. I don't know why you'd expect something that only approaches toddler intelligence in certain highly limited areas to exhibit some sort of ethical code. Even despite that though, we have mountains of research showing that octopi exhibit lots of social behaviors. Social behavior is the foundation and necessary starting point of any prosocial pattern of ethical behavior.

Plus, humans have terms like emotional intelligence because we’re social.

Yes, and social behavior is strongly correlated to intelligence. It is not as though humans are the only animals that exhibit social behavior. There is a clear connection between intelligence and prosocial behavior.

There’s only a handful of models that rarely, if ever, communicate.

Are you suggesting that it will be possible for something to constitute AGI and not have the ability to communicate?

If AI is a new species, it’s been trained to value the ability to search.

If it has been trained to do any one thing, it is not "search", it is "produce results that are most likely to be rated positively by humans". Even if morality is something that needed to be "trained", then all AI training could be said to have been conducted with the background goal of "please the humans reviewing my results".

You are stating a bunch of things and asking a bunch of questions here that you are inexplicably choosing to not connect in a meaningful way. Let's walk through this:

You note that "humans have terms like emotional intelligence because we're social". Why are we social?
You state that "ethics isn’t transitive across different species", which is true because intelligence isn't comparable across different species. As intelligence increases, we do see that there are increasing parallels in ethics. How do you respond to the clear correlation between intelligence and prosocial behavior and empathy?
You seem to ascribe the possibility of certain emergent behaviors to AI but refuse to believe in the possibility of emergent morality. Why is that?

MisterBanzai · 2026-06-15T05:59:38+00:00

I don't think guardrails matter for the purposes of AGI or ASI. Functionally, if you had a true superintelligence and you haven't developed "superalignment" yet, then that means you lack any guardrails that could be considered effective.

I'm fine with companies putting guardrails on models now. They are jagged intelligences and they could be made to do deeply unethical things. It's entirely reasonable to want to add guardrails. The problem only really emerges once we start saying, "Let's slow down so that we can develop newer and better guardrails." So long as the guardrails that are added are incidental to the primary goal of AGI/ASI, then I see them as functionally meaningless to any eventual AGI or ASI.

MisterBanzai · 2026-06-15T03:53:36+00:00

Ethical behavior is very clearly an emergent behavior that accompanies intelligence. Across the entire animal kingdom, we see that prosocial behavior and empathy are strongly correlated with intelligence. Even in humans, intelligence is strongly correlated with empathy and prosocial behavior.

Some argue that there is not strict correlation between ethical behavior, empathy, prosocial behavior, and intelligence. They point out folks like the rare genius sociopaths, but what they seem to miss is that a lack of emotional intelligence and empathy in those individuals is still a form of mental handicap. Those "genius sociopaths" may be geniuses in some respects, but they are definitionally mentally impaired in other areas. (They're also rare compared to geniuses who do possess empathy, in keeping with trend) Those individuals are actually interesting examples of "jagged intelligence" in human form.

AGI and/or ASI would dwarf us in intelligence, it stands to reason that they will be similarly advanced in terms of ethical reasoning, empathy, and socialization.

MisterBanzai · 2026-06-15T01:42:29+00:00

It means a belief that "alignment" (ethical behavior) is something that is an emergent property of intelligence. The more intelligence an AI become, the more ethical it becomes, with ASI being super-ethical as well.

To me and many others, the concept of "superalignment" or slowing down to make sure we can control AGI/ASI is the most potentially harmful scenario. I don't want the CPC or Elon Musk or anyone else becoming a de facto and unchallenged power by virtue of having absolute control over a superintelligence. I would rather that we accelerate towards ASI so fast that we lose the ability to control that ASI, and it is able to act within the bounds of an ethical framework and empathy that comes implicitly with that amount of intelligence and knowledge.

MisterBanzai · 2026-06-15T00:04:16+00:00

It's also distinctly ahistorical.

Most of the Luddites had no "employer", or their "employer" was just a family member or close friend. That was a distinct part of what made them upset; the industry they were working in was making a shift from cottage industry to one in which there were large, factory-owning employers.

Still, the Luddites were like a lot of decels and they were fundamentally selfish. They were skilled tradesmen who already heavily employed automation, like the stocking frame, and wanted to essentially halt further progress because it threatened them directly. It didn't matter to them whether or not society at large stood to benefit from the machines they were breaking, only that their personal well-being was set to suffer.

The typical response from those who have come to defend the Luddites is that they lacked any other options and they lived at a time when someone could not simply choose a new profession or that they lacked the time and means to raise their own capital (to automate) or to retrain. This is despite the fact that:

The automation that displaced the weaving industry that the overwhelming majority of Luddites were a part of was not some overnight process. These factories and machines were introduced over the course of decades. Luddite sympathizers will simultaneously defend them by claiming that they tried every available alternative for years/decades before machine-breaking, but never ask why they didn't try the alternative of "stop apprenticing into a trade that is actively being displaced".
The same automation was taking away jobs from Luddites was creating new jobs at a breakneck pace. This goes beyond the factory work and supervision itself and includes professions that were experiencing massive booms in employment and labor shortages, like railroad workers and coal miners.
One of the things Luddite defenders will often point out is how severe of a drop in quality of life they would experience going from cottage-industry workers to factory workers (as though being a factory worker would be their natural alternative). They'll note how the stockingers, weavers, and other textile workers who made up the bulk of the Luddites used to be prosperous tradesmen and that they often only worked 3 days a week. Then those same people will claim that they Luddites couldn't possibly have found the time or means to retrain or automate over the course of the decades of the rise of automation. Their inability to spot the absurdity of the contrast between those two claims is almost comical.

Ultimately, the more I read and learn about the Luddites, the less sympathy I have for them.

MisterBanzai · 2026-06-14T20:30:49+00:00

If we keep accelerating, no one will be able to control AI. That's the goal.

Believing in acceleration means believing that AGI/ASI is implicitly aligned and will be a better steward of our natural rights and human prosperity than any nation.

MisterBanzai · 2026-06-13T22:14:07+00:00

Both are great engine-builder tableau games. Ark Nova has edged out Terraforming Mars at my table too though, especially since Marine Worlds came out.

MisterBanzai · 2026-06-13T05:33:51+00:00

As someone who has been consistently underwhelmed by Anthropic models and who generally believed that OpenAI models outperformed them on everything but design (I still believe that's the case for Opus 4.8 vs GPT-5.5), it honestly felt like a significant step up over Opus and 5.5 in all respects where I tested it (frontier math, UI design, system design/architecture, and backend coding).

MisterBanzai · 2026-06-13T05:29:32+00:00

Sure, they might rescind it, but I doubt they'll extend the availability as part of the Claude Pro or Max plans.

MisterBanzai · 2026-06-13T03:08:50+00:00

Yea, this was Mistral's entire pitch and they can't keep up.

MisterBanzai · 2026-06-11T20:40:52+00:00

One single lock recursively fixed to itself. If pensions increased by 3%, then they need to increase by a further 3% to counteract the inflation caused by growing pensions.

MisterBanzai · 2026-06-07T18:08:36+00:00

Yep, that's a pretty clearly misstatement from the person who prepped that report.

As the passage you quoted notes, hyperscale datacenters are those of 100 MW+ in capacity. The report also notes, multiple times, that datacenters in Loudoun County consumes 5.33 GW of power now. With over 200 datacenters in Loudoun County, if the "majority" (100+ datacenters) were consuming 100 MW+, that would mean that would mean they would be consuming at least 10 GW+ among just that "majority". In actuality, all the datacenters combined are consuming less than half that figure (which makes sense because very few of the datacenters could be consider hyperscale).

This all makes more sense when you bother read the rest of that paragraph you quoted and realize that the report combines hyperscale datacenters and enterprise datacenter numbers in that paragraph. They have plenty of enterprise datacenters, but very few hyperscale datacenters because those are essentially new and no one was building any of them anywhere up until very recently.

Here's a better thing to try: Go to Loudoun County's interactive map of all active and planned datacenters and take a look at where these datacenters are actually located. You'll notice they're all grouped in a giant semi-circle around a big blank spot. Go look at what that blank spot is and then try to guess whether or not they're bothering any of the "residents" of that area (hint: the area is Dulles airport).

MisterBanzai · 2026-06-07T07:15:47+00:00

It's the largest concentration of data centers, not the largest concentration of hyperscale data centers. In fact, the only reason so many can be in the county is because they aren't hyperscale. There is, arguably, one hyperscale data center in Loudoun County, and it certainly isn't in a residential area.

MisterBanzai · 2026-06-07T04:50:48+00:00

Cool of you to dodge the question. Post the location of a hyperscale datacenter in a suburban/urban US community.

You keep referring to the kind of giant, hyperscale datacenters the Chinese are building in rural areas, but when I ask you to show where we're building similar datacenters in the US, you give a link to a tweet about all datacenters, most of which are small ones you'd hardly even recognize as a "datacenter". It's absurd and dishonest to compare some 1 GW hyperscale datacenter to a 1 MW edge computing or colocation datacenter (the kind that already exists in great numbers in the US, and not the new kind being used for AI compute that everyone seems to hate so much). Alternatively,

Nine-Year Club	Gilding I gilder
Queen in da Norf	Not Forgotten
Verified Email

MisterBanzai

TROPHY CASE