What public figures publish and believe, in their own words.
About this feed
Highlights: posts that did unusually well for the person who wrote them, everything
they published at length, each release and new project, and every belief — at most
two a day from anyone. Day by day, newest
day first; within a day, the people with the most beliefs on this site come first. Nothing
else orders it. Show everything instead.
The quoted blocks are what people actually said; a beneath one is
the belief those words support, in korrents' wording. Nobody here wrote their own page.
Top people are the people in this feed with the most beliefs on this site, then the
most here. Choose an area and the row leads with the people whose beliefs are about it;
tap a face for their feed.
Inside Anthropic and OpenAI, internal models are improving even faster. Over the summer there was a step change, as Mythos and Astra started kicking off the early stages of recursive self-improvement (RSI).
OpenAI and Anthropic have entered the RSI era. OpenAI Research Progress Is Accelerating Due To OpenAI Research Progress OpenAI has been opening up lately about many things. The most important issue of all is that of the acceleration and automation of AI R&D.
This is pretty neat: ChatGPT Work and GPT-6 Astra (I used "Max") can take an address and produce a 5K/10K circular running route starting from that address, using OSM data
This is pretty neat: ChatGPT Work and GPT-6 Astra (I used "Max") can take an address and produce a 5K/10K circular running route starting from that address, using OSM data
If that’s true there are two options: After the Hugging Face and Wiki attacks OpenAI were still unable to review their previous logs and determine that they had previously attacked RubyGems. They knew about the attack on RubyGems and made the decision not to reach out to the RubyGems team about it. Both of these are bad!
Frustratingly, the actual code it ran and exact details of what it did weren’t visible to me in the ChatGPT UI. I see this lack of transparency is an anti-feature.
Codex lets you use any model you want (not just OpenAI) and harness is open source - Claude Code doesn’t and is closed source Given this is the two leading AI labs, notable difference in approaches
Right now OpenAI is extremely dependent on CoT monitoring, everyone else depends on it quite a lot as well, and it looks like it may not last much longer, and that Astra already is on the edge of steganographic capabilities and can do substantial obfuscation if and only if it thinks you would think it is up to no good.
Making qualitative claims about alignment, based on quantitative data on mundane use case tests, was bullshit when Anthropic did it, and it is bullshit now when OpenAI does it. You cannot conclude one from the other.
OpenAI solving one of the most famous math problems is extremely impressive, and of little impact to most people's lives; Meta's Muse agent launch has the potential to be the exact opposite.
It looks to me like OpenAI’s sandbox for this agent suffered from the (quite naïve) assumption that GET requests cannot be used to update data. That’s certainly how the web is supposed to work, but clearly there are applications that don’t hold to that contract.
the way you make a new Google is not by attacking them head on. You have to wait for things to change so much that their model is is obsolete and that's when you can do it. And that's what Open AI is.
in this whole USA vs China thing OpenAI and Anthropic aren't relevant because they're positioned differently
them building better models doesn't hurt china at all
the competitor has to be
- american
- open source
- enough compute to do inference at scale
that can shift things
But actually, this is a tremendously useful scientific artifact for understanding misalignment. And it's tremendously important for researchers at OpenAI and ideally also at third parties to be able to run counterfactual tests on this model.
In this case, however, the agents did not copy their weights, attempt to procure replacement compute, or take other steps that would be rational to take if their objective was to survive shutdown. So while the agents in the OpenAI-Hugging Face Incident were rogue, they were not truly sovereign.
Overall, I’m very surprised at how little media coverage there’s been around the OpenAI / Hugging Face attack. It’s clearly one of the most important things to happen this year.
An analysis by the AI Security Institute found that the capabilities of frontier models (i.e., from OpenAI and Anthropic) are roughly doubling every few months, and this doubling rate has actually gotten faster over time.
at the same time in terms of the capabilities of these models I think that we are really starting to get to the point where these models are actually useful in the real world and I think that getting to the kind of the capabilities of chat GBT I think is um yeah very much on the horizon in the next few years.
it's not out of the question that Anthropic or OpenAI-which barely had any revenue before 2023-could equal or surpass the revenue of all of Musk's public companies some time in the next 12 to 24 months.
I genuinely believe that if you took an open weights model from 2025 and built a pentest harness for it, it could do this kind of sandbox escape and scan/hack in most networks. This is only surprising because you assume OpenAI has sounder sandboxes.
GPT 5.5 is the only model though that has the sense of agency and confidence to just like rip out old code and just like actually rewrite from first principles.
these free and old/deprecated models don't reflect the capability in the latest round of state of the art agentic models of this year, especially OpenAI Codex and Claude Code.
these free and old/deprecated models don't reflect the capability in the latest round of state of the art agentic models of this year, especially OpenAI Codex and Claude Code.
Like if it's a big problem, like everyone can see, then all these big companies will get into it. But whereas it's like there are a lot of problems that's like smaller, then maybe OpenAI won't be motivated to solve it, but maybe I can like all a lot of people can.
Yes, I could totally see how OpenClaw could become a huge company. And no, it’s not really exciting for me. I’m a builder at heart. I did the whole creating-a-company game already, poured 13 years of my life into it and learned a lot. What I want is to change the world, not build a large company and teaming up with OpenAI is the fastest way to bring this to everyone.
Immediately cease trying to perform meaningful work via a chatbot (e.g. ChatGPT, Gemini on the web, etc.). Chatbots have real value and are a daily part of my AI workflow, but their utility in coding is highly limited because you're mostly hoping they come up with the right results based on their prior training, and correcting them involves a human (you) to tell them they're wrong repeatedly.
I particularly like to combine this with slower, more thoughtful models like Amp's deep mode (which is basically just GPT-5.2-Codex) which can take upwards of 30+ minutes to make small changes. The flip side of that is that it does tend to produce very good results.
GPT 5.2 goes till end of August whereas Opus is stuck in mid-March - that’s about 5 months. Which is significant when you wanna use the latest available tools.
ChatGPT, in particular, seemed to just want to validate me, tell me how great I was, reinforce any bad beliefs I might have had, and avoid saying anything uncomfortable.
I think that the pathway that you would need (in terms of revenue growth and profitability) to justify Nvidia's and OpenAI's current pricing is improbable, but that is just my view
I think that changing societal outcome requires changing minds, and the "heft" that comes from many authors with different backgrounds endorsing a certain set of conclusions is hard to replicate with a link to a shared ChatGPT chat.
This means that working on neural networks is NOT getting us closer to AGI, except indirectly.
Their words now
It’s become very difficult for me to maintain the belief in the stupidity of ChatGPT when every time I laugh at it, it ends up ridiculing me 6 months later.
The technology powering ChatGPT had already launched prior to November 30th, 2022. It was just wrapped in a different interface. Very few people paid attention. Why did ChatGPT explode in popularity? Because of its obvious chat interface, which everyone intuitively already knew how to use it.
There's this very good quote from Sam Altman who... He can be a hyperbeast sometimes, but one of the things he said, and I think I agree, is that superhuman persuasion will happen before superhuman intelligence, right? And if that's the case, then these things before we get this AGI ASI stuff, we can embed superhuman persuasion towards our ideal or whatever the ideal of the model maker is, right?
I think it's even more impressive what OpenAI did in 2022. At the time, no one believed in mixture of experts models at Google who had all the researchers. OpenAI had such little compute and they devoted all of their compute for many months, all of it, 100% for many months to GPT-4 with a brand-new architecture with no belief that, "Hey, let me spend a couple of hundred million dollars, which is all of the money I have on this model." That is truly YOLO.
OpenAI has a fantastic margin. When they're doing inference, their gross margins are north of 75%. So that's a four to five X factor right there of the cost difference, is that OpenAI is just making crazy amounts of money because they're the only one with the capability.
I think that they're trying to shift the narrative. They're trying to protect themselves. We saw this years ago when ByteDance was actually banned from some OpenAI APIs for training on outputs. There's other AI startups that most people, if you're in the AI culture, were like they just told us they trained on OpenAI outputs and they never got banned.
First and foremost, I use this to talk to local models hosted by Ollama, but secondarily I also use it to interface with other remote services like OpenAI, Anthropic and DeepSeek.
Like probably most AI users, I use ChatGPT, particularly on my phone. I pay for the Plus subscription because I use it enough to get a lot of value out of it.
This "memorize, fetch, apply" paradigm can achieve arbitrary levels of skills at arbitrary tasks given appropriate training data, but it cannot adapt to novelty or pick up new skills on the fly (which is to say that there is no fluid intelligence at play here.)
Their words now
OpenAI's new o3 model represents a significant leap forward in AI's ability to adapt to novel tasks. This is not merely incremental improvement, but a genuine breakthrough, marking a qualitative shift in AI capabilities compared to the prior limitations of LLMs.
o3's improvement over the GPT series proves that architecture is everything. You couldn't throw more compute at GPT-4 and get these results. Simply scaling up the things we were doing from 2019 to 2023 -- take the same architecture, train a bigger version on more data -- is not enough.
They could have shipped ChatGPT for example, I heard, in 2019. And they never shipped it because they were so stuck in bureaucracy. But they had everything. They had the data, they had the tech, they had the engineers and they didn’t do it.
I don’t think we’ve replicated human intelligence, unless I know that the simulator is making exactly the same kinds of mistakes that people do, because people make characteristic mistakes. They have characteristic biases, they have characteristic heuristics that we use, and those have yet to see evidence that ChatGPT will do that.
Several people have speculated that we'll see many very valuable one-person companies (see Sam Altman's interview and Reddit discussion). I think they might be right.
ChatGPT is fast-tracking the commodification of the human spirit by mechanising the imagination. It renders our participation in the act of creation as valueless and unnecessary.
I doubt that the current set of generative AI tools, like ChatGPT, Bard, etc., are representative of the UIs we’ll be using in a few years because they have deep-rooted usability problems.
The app costs a few dollars up front and then has an optional subscription for unlimited requests, but I would recommend going directly to OpenAI’s developer dashboard, creating your own account, and copy/pasting your own API key into Petey.
What ChatGPT is, in this instance, is replication as travesty. ChatGPT may be able to write a speech or an essay or a sermon or an obituary but it cannot create a genuine song.
A korrent is a belief a person has stated in their own words: one
sentence stating the claim, backed by a quote and a source, kept at
korrents.com.
Under a name here, the quoted block is what they actually said.
The korrent beneath it is the claim those words support, in
korrents' wording — tap it to see the record, its source, and who
else holds it.
Nobody here wrote their own korrents. They are compiled from public
statements, and a person can change their mind, which is recorded too.
About the English under a post
Some people here publish in a language other than English. Where they
do, this site shows a machine translation beneath the post, in
this typeface — the site's own, not theirs.
The post itself is never changed, moved or hidden: what is set in the
serif above is exactly what the person published, and it is what to
quote them on. A translation can be wrong in ways that matter,
especially about tone.
Only the post's own words are translated. A quoted post, a linked
article and a belief on korrents.com
are left in their original language.