This is the best thing Jane Wickline has done. I worried about whether she was on the bubble because she's so situational (I think that's a good thing), but clearly she's got staying power.
Yeah it wasn’t great. Other parts of this week’s Weekend Update were better like the Meta AI character having the same dead eyes as Zuck or Tucker Carlson discussing movies. That wasn’t great but had some fun in pure ridiculousness.
Either way the fact this is even a sketch says a lot about where we are. They clearly think enough people know about this discussion, and him specifically, to be able to pull this off. If you made an SNL sketch about other people HN talks about the audience would just be totally confused and lost.
He has earned the very dubious honor of joining Elizabeth Holmes and Zuckerberg as “weirdo tech people to make fun of”.
I know it’s a little OT, but I keep seeing the same misquotation all over the place. Right at the beginning Michael Che refers to the claim that “there’s a 10% chance that AI could wipe out humanity within 10 years.”
But that isn’t what the often-misquoted current and former Anthropic employees said. They said it was a 10% chance of it happening by the end of the current decade [0], i.e. by 2030, not 2036.
Unfortunately, this question was never asked by any news organization or of Coxon as he ran to the press. People who would usually ask to "see the work" never did because it comfortably confirmed their biases.
Specifically, I have no idea what the research says, or even if it exists, I wish we had a system to figure that out instead of exciting Twitter "whistleblower" threads.
You are wrong. The confusion arises because Coxon said “within the decade” with no associated probability and Hubinger said “within the next decade” at 10%.
Was expecting it to be US-only, but the list of blocked countries is odd.
Andorra, Australia, Belgium, Canada, Germany, Algeria, France, French Guiana, Guadeloupe, Comoros (the), Luxembourg, Morocco, Monaco, Martinique, New Caledonia, French Polynesia, Saint Pierre and Miquelon, Réunion, Seychelles, Tunisia, Wallis and Futuna, Mayotte
When Dario talks to himself sotto voce and then answers himself in a raspy voice, Gollum-like, made me lose it. I once encountered a severely cognitively deficient individual on the bus who calmed himself in the exact same fashion. It's almost a perfectly succinct psychological snapshot of the character they're trying to create.
They missed an opportunity to talk about 'my precious AI' or have the gollum-like voice talk in claudeisms ('lever', 'honest take', 'load bearing'). I wasn't entirely clear on the skits working theory, is this a crazy guy that thinks he has the one ring but really has a cereal box toy?
I haven’t myself. I don’t know his name. So in many ways, I’m a more normal person. I’m aware they keep claiming that AI will kill everyone, but that’s about as much as I know. I didn’t even know if the CEO was claiming it or just underlings.
It wasn’t until I saw comments here that I found out they weren’t making up the gollum thing and he apparently talks to himself a bit like that.
I generally don't think SNL is very funny but I think it's quite socially healthy that they make fun of the political and economic elites. I wonder if we mapped out their targets if there would be any glaring omissions that would stand out.
This video didn't make me laugh but I appreciate the flexing of the first amendment. They should continue with other AI-related figures.
I disagree there are so many other ways to be funny than making fun of someone's stuttering. We shouldn't be bullying people delivering trillions of dollars of value to society.
That is literally bullying. especially when those insecurities are something that can not be fixed. You can't excuse bullying because "it's for humor." It's cruel.
I still don't get it. Especially with shows with large distribution merely being a public figure pails in comparison. Dario has no ability to defend himself here. Any post he makes on social media is unable to reach the same people. The idea that public figures can be bullied and harassed just serves bullies' interest in defining a way to morally continue their antics of hurting others.
If you can't see it as jocks bullying the nerds, then see it as just harassment. You are getting caught up on the exact words and not that it makes whoever a jerk to put people down.
I think Dario will be fine. I don't have much sympathy.
And yes, it is indeed because he's a billionaire actively shaping a worse society. Not because it's okay to make fun of impediments when it's on rich people.
In reality, it is a big scam to trick the public into thinking AI is dangerous and needs to be regulated. Then the government can limit it so only the preferred companies can continue to develop it.
It's because both frontier companies are worried about plateauing and there's no barrier to competition. They both have upcoming IPOs, too.
To be fair, I think most of this is sci-fi brain rot, but the fact that 2 trillion-dollar companies supposedly have RSI as their #1 priority by a long shot is concerning to me
I don't think it such a bad idea that the Big Ai labs put money into a fund for their negligence, but that should not relieve them of criminal liabilities
my consternation is that they likely have sufficient money to avoid consequences, like the sacks and the opioid epidemic, two-tier justice system at it's finest...
Hey how about we go back to LLM/AI being a simple knowledge request service? You have a model trained on data, you request a text or media response from that knowledge model.
No agents. And if someone loops the response into an agent, well, then they are legally liable for personally doing that.
I’m looking so much forward to the bubble popping and LLM to be seen as a standard software. They were so much more interesting without the whole absurd 14y-old-first-sci-fi hype around them :(
Something about the lack of socialization leads tech people into these off-putting ego cults.
While it's not exactly the traditional Randian objectivism you're alluding to, effective altruism adds an extra step: it ostensibly helps people. But, ultimately, it's a distinction without difference: no one escapes the dialectic. Individuals, especially ones cloistered off from the world, are not good arbiters of what will make the world better, or of understanding the higher-order effects of their actions.
What are they doing now to stop their harms? They're not bound to commit as much harm as possible just because government hasn't told them to knock it off, they can just, not.
I think the Ayn Rand thing is more about "the I'm getting mine, f everyone else". However the next 5-10 years shake out, if you're ultra rich today you'll almost definitely be ultra rich in 10 years. Probably ultra-richer. Ayn Rand wasn't just about free markets, she was about individualism over collectivism. Don't worry about how your actions will effect society, worry about what's best for yourself and society will work itself out.
"Ayn Rand" unfortunately seems to have become shorthand on HN for "politics I disagree with". I wonder how long it's going to be until I see somebody here describes the CCP as "Randian".
Sorry Dario is the exact opposite of Ayn Rand, he wants the government to manage his industry cause he thinks it will be good for him. More likely all his competitors are more libertarian like Ayn Rand writes about
She styled herself a philosopher not a practitioner. Has she been more of the letter she might've realized that regulatory capture is even more clever than deregulation.
Copyright might be part of this; I haven’t thought that through. But this restriction is about whose turf they’re trying to push their product on. SNL has to be pushed through a different distributor in different regions.
Hard to comprehend how we've gone from Norm MacDonald being so relentlessly bold he was fired, to this sterility, in 30 years.
Is it, though?
Wouldn't it be more strange if the former didn't eventually lead to the latter?
But it falls off very quickly after that, that it's still on the air today is elder abuse
Either way the fact this is even a sketch says a lot about where we are. They clearly think enough people know about this discussion, and him specifically, to be able to pull this off. If you made an SNL sketch about other people HN talks about the audience would just be totally confused and lost.
He has earned the very dubious honor of joining Elizabeth Holmes and Zuckerberg as “weirdo tech people to make fun of”.
But that isn’t what the often-misquoted current and former Anthropic employees said. They said it was a 10% chance of it happening by the end of the current decade [0], i.e. by 2030, not 2036.
0: https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2026/sep/09/anthropic...
Specifically, I have no idea what the research says, or even if it exists, I wish we had a system to figure that out instead of exciting Twitter "whistleblower" threads.
The uploader has not made this video available in your country
Andorra, Australia, Belgium, Canada, Germany, Algeria, France, French Guiana, Guadeloupe, Comoros (the), Luxembourg, Morocco, Monaco, Martinique, New Caledonia, French Polynesia, Saint Pierre and Miquelon, Réunion, Seychelles, Tunisia, Wallis and Futuna, Mayotte
And most of the countries on this list probably fall under some French channel’s domain since they are dependencies (edit: or former colonies).
Claudisms could be fun but probably too obscure for the target audience.
It wasn’t until I saw comments here that I found out they weren’t making up the gollum thing and he apparently talks to himself a bit like that.
This video didn't make me laugh but I appreciate the flexing of the first amendment. They should continue with other AI-related figures.
And yes, it is indeed because he's a billionaire actively shaping a worse society. Not because it's okay to make fun of impediments when it's on rich people.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7vN_PEmeKb0
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g4Gh_IcK8UM
It's because both frontier companies are worried about plateauing and there's no barrier to competition. They both have upcoming IPOs, too.
Lawfare Media recently, actually proposed a mutualize insurance system for Ai
https://www.lawfaremedia.org/article/bootstrapping-frontier-...
I don't think it such a bad idea that the Big Ai labs put money into a fund for their negligence, but that should not relieve them of criminal liabilities
my consternation is that they likely have sufficient money to avoid consequences, like the sacks and the opioid epidemic, two-tier justice system at it's finest...
No agents. And if someone loops the response into an agent, well, then they are legally liable for personally doing that.
While it's not exactly the traditional Randian objectivism you're alluding to, effective altruism adds an extra step: it ostensibly helps people. But, ultimately, it's a distinction without difference: no one escapes the dialectic. Individuals, especially ones cloistered off from the world, are not good arbiters of what will make the world better, or of understanding the higher-order effects of their actions.
What are they doing now to stop their harms? They're not bound to commit as much harm as possible just because government hasn't told them to knock it off, they can just, not.
If I may... a drEAk meme
(⌐_⌐)ノ Empathy
(•ᴗ•)つ Apathy
Copyright is another threat to humanity.