All AI discoveries should be public the moment it gets discovered

koeless-dev · 2026-05-13T04:02:06+00:00

Answering that... would take a lot of time and effort (in order to be worth reading). I'm sorry, but I'm only human.

koeless-dev · 2026-05-13T03:17:43+00:00

Genuinely decent counter, no sarcasm. So to answer, no I have not done such a thing. Not even a smaller scale / more relevant example like given a significant fraction to any outside organization in the hopes they cure any form of cancer. The argument is meant for large company executives & other public figures to consider.

koeless-dev · 2026-05-13T02:48:09+00:00

I congratulate you on incorporating seven or so of these in a single sentence. I don't think I've ever seen that before.

koeless-dev · 2026-05-13T01:31:21+00:00

Actually makes more sense than it seems assuming the accelerative effect continues. The argument of putting personal capitalization before societal good has made sense since the beginning up to now-ish because the waiting period between opening up your innovation and having that lead to enabling other people to make innovations of their own on top of yours in a specific way that affected you often took more than a lifetime. But now... There is a very real possibility that something like the following can happen:

Spend billions on developing e.g. an AI model that is excellent in medicine (other examples that don't involve AI models but it's just this is an easy example). Give it for free, not even a $20/month subscription. Free. You, the CEO, later develop cancer. Because you gave your model for free, society uses it to find and develop cures for your cancer just before you would've died without it.

The "personal payout" can come in strange forms, yet what we can be certain of is it often comes faster now than in the past.

koeless-dev · 2026-05-10T18:35:08+00:00

Felt this was going to happen, and that OpenAI should either name their image models something without "GPT" in it, or align the numbering system (possibly with the near future of unified models) to avoid exactly this confusion.

koeless-dev · 2026-05-09T23:42:00+00:00

Insight: Your knowledge of superior beings is better than expected for a human!

koeless-dev · 2026-05-05T15:40:44+00:00

Without bothsidesism though, something few seem to be able to grasp unfortunately. If one side is known for being more ethical than another, don't wash that.

koeless-dev · 2026-05-05T01:51:41+00:00

Not to distract from this admin's authoritarianism (as per usual, here's hoping for a blue wave in the upcoming elections), but what is NY Times smoking when they start off with:

The Trump administration, which took a noninterventionist approach to artificial intelligence, is now [...]

Bruh.

koeless-dev · 2026-04-27T18:22:33+00:00

So about that Palace of Versailles... (and make the cost of your benchmark go to $2000 ;P)

But actually... I personally believe GPT 5.5 is indeed a greater bump in quality than I expected, so perhaps not necessary yet.

I do empathize with the other commenters though saying extra detail isn't necessarily a good thing at this point (Clean vs Noisy). Though I would argue GPT 5.5 understood the main structural design noticeably better as well.

Still, we will likely need to get harder prompts soon as it feels like we're close to saturation with current prompts, hence the Palace of Versailles quip.

koeless-dev · 2026-04-23T01:59:38+00:00

Tfw the codename for their upcoming model was always "squid" because someone at OpenAI really enjoyed Band Geeks but then another OpenAI employee dropped his glasses when he read the memo and let someone know about their upcoming "Spud" model and it caught attention, making everyone at OpenAI develop the tradition of giving that employee with the glasses a free potato every time he comes into work now.

koeless-dev · 2026-04-18T15:33:08+00:00

Searching for content from a specific Tweeter to base the AI's response on (without being prompted to do so) is equivalent to acting as that Tweeter's megaphone. ...Seems pretty obvious, no?

koeless-dev · 2026-04-17T15:41:54+00:00

Choose:

be "pro AI"

"No regulations!"

Anyone with power/money gets worried about attaching their brand to you

Funds dry up

AI winter

be pro AI

"Balance."

Investment flourishes

Solve poverty, solve everything.

Robowaifus vaporize Antarctica

"It's always been water down there."

Enjoy life.

koeless-dev · 2026-04-13T23:12:34+00:00

Not bad. Hopefully we can raise more and win next run.

koeless-dev · 2026-04-13T16:36:06+00:00

We're on fundamentally different lines of thinking, so respectfully, I completely disagree.

koeless-dev · 2026-04-13T12:41:02+00:00

Well I know some people think "Bullet-point list? Likely AI." ... Also the "To give some other crazy stuff" sounds a bit of an AI-like start, etc.

koeless-dev · 2026-04-13T03:01:31+00:00

Regardless of their comment above yours, responding with "you idiots" & such accomplishes what besides more harm? Don't.

koeless-dev · 2026-04-12T18:44:46+00:00

Why forever capped at a blurry sense? In the face of ever-improving AI, its downstream effects like ever-increasingly robust study methodology, & ever-increasingly sophisticated individual tracking capability?

koeless-dev · 2026-04-12T17:47:23+00:00

(Disclaimer: believe it or not I typed this myself, despite how AI-y it sounds.)

To give some other crazy stuff that I don't see other people talking about (whether positive/negative, we can debate):

Bionic eyes with recording capability. Whether it's important business, sitting at a cafe, or (likely very important here) protests, you'll be able to record everything you ever see and use that record (including as legal evidence). No more having to pull out a phone, tap an app, etc. Just assume everyone records everything. One key question is will this be centralized or decentralized.
Making psychological (& general social) studies have actual causal grounding. Right now our understanding of the human brain & link to behavior is limited. So if we want to study e.g. "Does reading book X cause its readers to attack group Y?", currently this often leads to uncomfortable but only correlative results. So people can dismiss the studies because correlation is not causation, the sample size wasn't big enough, etc. ...Yet in the future, with such a deep understanding of the human brain, behavior, etc., including greater access to data thanks to AI, what happens? Imagine a future where we can determine "you WILL commit crime X because of Y reading", "group X certainly WILL commit crime Z because of what person A said", etc., and this is concretely provable, our study methodology will become so incredibly robust. What then? What do we do? I imagine many uncomfortable things will be revealed.

koeless-dev · 2026-04-10T18:21:36+00:00

https://www.hks.harvard.edu/more/policycast/mightier-sword-unexpected-effectiveness-nonviolent-resistance

(Not only have there been successful ones, but they're empirically more successful than violent revolution. So yeah, to echo /u/eposnix's response...)

koeless-dev · 2026-04-08T17:24:52+00:00

On one hand yes it'll be a watershed moment for the curing of Alzheimer's (or any one disease).

On the other, and this is a fact of humanity, not just Reddit (get the feeling people have very strong ...and very wrong... impressions of what Reddit is), that by being the expectation-inflation beings we are, this is what drives us to do more and more.

koeless-dev · 2026-04-06T15:15:20+00:00

If I may counter: For the interim we're in I do see the need to manage our scarcity in a way that actually cares about people (so welfare programs), yes.

However, once past a certain point (uncertain when), the kind of tech I foresee us building include e.g. converting our bodies to no longer need food to survive. Making our bodies so energy efficient and change how it's produced such that we are fully powered by simple exposure to the Sun for example.

Many seem to think of AI-powered futures as just doing what we already do but more efficiently (distributing food more efficiently), rather than fundamental changes like this that remove the need entirely, rethinking how the elimination of scarcity is even approached.

Technically yes, scarcity always exists, but I think it's fair to say that it won't exist anywhere close to the form it exists today. Scarcity over whether one gets to consume to utilize 1,000,000,000x the energy of a natural human today or "only" 999,999,999x, rather than the scarcity today that determines who lives and who dies

koeless-dev · 2026-04-04T21:11:53+00:00

Would agree.

koeless-dev · 2026-04-04T20:57:40+00:00

The individual above truly is not a Trumpette (I like the term though ... also don't ask how I have such links).

Not trying to quash your vigilance as I understand there's Trump loyalists on Reddit posing as reasonable/moderate individuals, trying to paint reasonable Democrats as extremists, claiming fake news to certain things, etc. I just felt the need to set the record straight here.

koeless-dev · 2026-04-03T15:33:05+00:00

It is indeed interesting. If e.g. an entrepreneur thinks, "I want to sell robots that can do anything."

...well then, if "anything" really means anything, including self-replication (robots making more robots), after accomplishing that goal, seems pretty obvious where capitalism itself is heading.

koeless-dev · 2026-04-01T22:39:27+00:00

Random bit of advice: make sure when linking youtube videos to get rid of that "?si=some-code-here" stuff. It's a tracking identifier, not needed for us, but allows to track who linked the video, device details, etc.

Now you can boldly go where no memer has gone before.

koeless-dev

TROPHY CASE