on ai psychosis: as i watch engineers fall deeper into the belief that an amalgamation of mathematical probabilities somehow understands their codebase better than they do, i find myself thinking back to a time when software wasn’t built for hypergrowth, but simply to do x without inventing y. ai seems almost fundamentally opposed to this philosophy. ask it to do x and it will eagerly invent y and z before it has even tried to understand x. the danger isn’t that ai writes bad code- it’s that it makes writing unnecessary code 100% free and the human condition is such that some of us will always prefer the fast, steep gains of ai, even when it does a bajillion unrelated things to accomplish something that could have been done without changing anything else. so, somewhat paradoxically, the quality of software may keep declining for as long as ai keeps getting better. the cheaper complexity becomes to create, the less incentive there is to understand or avoid it. try to preserve this craft created by our ancestors write a LOC by hand today

重大信息差： 赶紧把 Google 反重力下回来，沐浴焚香，洗洗干净，迎接神的降临。

Working on better orb memory management. Opus 5.5 decided to call processes that take up a lot of memory "hogs" Hogs! Absolutely Right, Belt & Braces (& Suspenders), Goblins, and now it's Hogs?

ということでWi-Fiに接続して、AIをゲームボーイで駆動させるDaydream、再生産を行います！ 開発当初チーム内で話していた「グリードアイランドみたいなゲーム作りたいね」という話にちなんで、800台限定。これ以上は再生産なしです。

In our Nature paper, we introduce the first superhuman Stratego AI, which we built using general techniques that we developed for RL & test-time compute under imperfect information. 1/N

Second question on AI. We are told repeatedly that AI is going to transform every aspect of our lives – jobs, productivity, inequality, science, communication, daily activities, social order, and politics, among others. But this promise (or threat) is coupled with the rhetoric that such an important technology, with all of the risks and competitive pressures that it entails, should be left to experts or to “technocracy” (perhaps construed broadly to include some regulators). These two statements are hard to reconcile in a democratic society. If anything is half as important as AI is said to be (and I agree, AI is potentially very important and transformative), then involving democratic voice is essential. If something will shape our future in a democratic society, then its direction is for democratic institutions to decide. My instinct is that democratic voice is essential, and relying too much on technocracy could be both dangerous and counterproductive. The counterargument that AI’s direction can and should be entrusted to technocracy would go something along the following lines. First, democratic decision-making has become imperiled in our age of polarization. Second, AI is sufficiently complex that most citizens won’t have a deep enough understanding to meaningfully contribute to the debate (and even to the question of what we want from AI). Third, competition between different labs, and perhaps competition between the US and China, creates enough discipline for a socially beneficial direction of AI to be adopted. Fourth, today’s AI leaders are enlightened and ethical enough that within the framework created by competition, they can be broadly trusted. There are many aspects of this counterargument that I do not find convincing. Taking them in order: polarization can be overcome, and big decisions and challenges sometimes bring societies together; in fact, delegating key decisions to technocracy without democratic input may diminish trust in institutions and experts, and may worsen polarization. Second, democratic voice does not require citizens to write code or design new models; the debate should be informative enough that citizens can weigh in about what type of future they want and how they trade off the costs and benefits of different options. Third, competition doesn’t seem to be a good disciplining framework; on the contrary, competition sometimes brings the worst out of both organizations and people. Fourth, if three decades of work on political economy and institutions has taught me anything, it is that we should not bank on the ethical grounding of unconstrained leaders. But, still, I do not mean to immediately dismiss the technocracy option if there are more compelling arguments for it. The question is, then, whether there are any circumstances under which such important decisions can be delegated to AI experts and technocracy. One final secondary question: even if we managed to get democratic input in the United States or even in Europe, AI will shape the lives of everyone on this planet. How do we ensure that the voice of nearly 6 billion people who don’t live in the US, Europe and China also contributes to the debates on AI?

NEW: Employees at OpenAI had raised security alarms months before the Hugging Face incident and related A.I. cyberattacks — their warnings were ignored. From @sheeraf, @dnvolz and me. https://www.nytimes.com/2026/09/29/technology/openai-warnings-security.html?unlocked_article_code=1.E1E.yjQM._7pTcsM9JMPl&smid=url-share

Ezra Klein asked Bill Gates whether normal corporate incentives are enough to handle AI risks. Gates doesn’t mince words:

Ultrafast - 8x the speed, up to 300 tokens/second. once you go ultrafast you won't go back :)

Emad is a good friend and one of the people I've learned the most from on AI, so having him say this about The Everything Code means a lot. Thanks @EMostaque  Small ask... if youre planning to pick up a copy, consider pre-ordering it rather than waiting. Pre-orders count towards the rankings, and rankings are what put the book in front of people who've never heard of me. Ive put an enormous amount of work into this, and I think it can help a lot of people... You'll get it on launch day, and it makes a real difference to me. Thanks!

Muse and team over the past weekend!

Introducing dots, powered by GPT-6 Astra. Remarkably capable, always-on agents built to handle everything.