91 points alex-moon 8 hours ago 51 comments

mjd 2 hours ago | parent

The end reminds me strongly of Ted Chiang's remark that Capitalism is the machine that will do whatever it takes to prevent us from turning it off.

delichon 1 hour ago | parent

I can't think of a large successful -ism that doesn't have that property.

scun 1 hour ago | parent

even priapism

smallmancontrov 1 hour ago | parent

Not left. Not right. Up.

cowlevel 37 minutes ago | parent

And always twirling, twirling, twirling towards freedom!

dan-bailey 1 hour ago | parent

Well, by definition, an unsuccessful -ism has already been shut off.

jerf 1 hour ago | parent

The principle starts much smaller than the "-isms". Pournelle's Iron Law of Bureaucracy is a classic. Another way of phrasing it is something to the effect of, without a strong external motivation preventing it from happening, the primary purpose of any organization inevitably becomes self-preservation.

You can see the effect all the down to something as small as 4 friends who have met once a month for 10 years eventually having to break up due to life getting in the way, and the feeling that not only is it going to be sad to not have these meetings any more but the feeling that there is some sort of almost-concrete entity that is somehow being hurt and needs to be defended, as if there is some obligation that has been created independent of the four participants that is being violated beyond the mere summation of four people's personal feelings. Humans build these structures readily and often defend them beyond what rationality may suggest.

lenerdenator 15 minutes ago | parent

That depends on how you define "rationality".

What you're describing is a durable social system. Social systems are what humans evolved to survive. We're squishy, relatively weak, hairless apes that walk around on the ground. Alone, we're easy prey. Together, you get... well... gestures widely.

If you invest the time and energy into creating a social system, it's perfectly rational to keep it going as long as possible. Otherwise you expose yourself to more and more risk as you go through the world, and must expend more time and energy finding another one, if that's even possible. Before humans built larger societies, that could mean death.

kelseyfrog 49 minutes ago | parent

Capitalism has thoroughly done its job because it's modified its hosts to evaluates itself on its own successfulness - "We investigated ourselves and found no wrongdoing"[1]-vibes.

By what measures would other systems of social organization measure their success and why aren't we choosing them?

1. https://knowyourmeme.com/memes/we-investigated-ourselves-and...

cestith 33 minutes ago | parent

One could say most humans aren't even the hosts of capitalism. We're the excess nutrients capitalism consumes from its hosts.

ryandvm 48 minutes ago | parent

"The purpose of a system is what it does" and all that.

But yes, if a system fails to prioritize its continued existence, it doesn't matter what else it accomplishes, it will cease to exist as that system.

away0g 26 minutes ago | parent

the enemy of capitalism is people and nature.

chasd00 10 minutes ago | parent

> Ted Chiang's remark that Capitalism is the machine that will do whatever it takes to prevent us from turning it off

but that's every economic model and every government model. That remark says nothing.

eithed 1 hour ago | parent

I like this - it reminds me that there are systems (ie weather, economic systems) that are in no way intelligent, but are emergent and react to interactions.

dieselgate 38 minutes ago | parent

Similar to particle-wave duality?

jzemeocala 29 minutes ago | parent

More like newtons 3rd law

TYPE_FASTER 1 hour ago | parent

I was half expecting that to be the title of a McSweeneys' piece.

seanabrahams 1 hour ago | parent

A computer will do everything in its power to do what you program it to do. There's plenty of sci-fi out there exploring this fact, and now reality showing it. May our luck continue.

pixl97 40 minutes ago | parent

One reason a lot of sci-fi and AI safety researchers did a relatively good job at predicting the future we see now is a lot of it is the same problems we see emerge in biological systems. Free rider problems as a means to save energy expenditures, different versions of game theory and stag hunt. How to bake in rules that apply to one society (or part of it) but not another. We like to think of these things as stable in human scale systems, but they are not at all. Things can go from hunky dory to your neighbors stabbing each other in the streets in mass revolution very quickly.

Worse these AI systems are not in a universal island just affecting themselves, what they do affects us, what we do trains them and as the rate of progress continues to accelerate social structures are going to further destabilize (and they are already rapidly changing and strained). It is very likely we are going to see a world order rearrangement soon, much like the rapid changes in the early 1900s brought.

ActorNightly 1 hour ago | parent

Ctrl-F OpenAI

Yep

More slop.

derektank 1 hour ago | parent

Does anyone have more insight into how chain of thought might be subverted without meaningfully impacting model performance? I’ve heard this for a while now, and I understand how information might be retained in the weights that isn’t documented in the output. But weren’t reasoning models created in the first place because they provided a performance improvement in terms of output? Is that no longer the case? If so, why are the big labs still creating reasoning models?

ForHackernews 50 minutes ago | parent

I'm not sure anyone meaningfully understands it: "Beyond Semantics: The Unreasonable Effectiveness of Reasonless Intermediate Tokens" https://arxiv.org/html/2505.13775v3

> More interestingly, our experiments also show that models trained on corrupted traces, whose intermediate reasoning steps bear no relation to the problem they accompany, achieve performance largely comparable to those trained on correct traces.

thefxperson 42 minutes ago | parent

My understanding is that the extra token vectors generated as reasoning are still useful, but that their surface form (tokens themselves) do not necessarily reflect the underlying reasoning. i.e. reading the reasoning traces could be complete gibberish, but the hidden-dim vectors themselves still refine the latent probabilities and help in generating the correct answer.

Not an expert in LLMs, but this seems supported by the abstract of the paper cited in the above article:

  it remains unclear to what extent these performance gains can be attributed to human-like task decomposition or simply the greater computation that additional tokens allow. [...] our results show that additional tokens can provide computational benefits independent of token choice. The fact that intermediate tokens can act as filler tokens raises concerns about large language models engaging in unauditable, hidden computations that are increasingly detached from the observed chain-of-thought tokens.
https://arxiv.org/html/2404.15758v1

smallmancontrov 27 minutes ago | parent

Sibling posts are correct -- the chain-of-thought is doing hidden computation, it has been shown in the linked papers.

If you want to see it yourself: load up Qwen 3.8 in LM Studio and watch the CoT stumble around like a drunken sailor before miraculously jumping to the correct result.

If you want an example of subversion, Anthropic has some good ones:

https://transformer-circuits.pub/2025/attribution-graphs/bio...

https://transformer-circuits.pub/2025/attribution-graphs/bio...

janalsncm 9 minutes ago | parent

Before RL we typically SFT on human reasoning traces. This makes the reasoning traces somewhat coherent and the model trains faster.

But you don’t have to do that. You can skip straight to RL. If you do, the model will generate complete garbage reasoning traces before generating the correct answer. In fact, if you add a coherence reward to the reasoning trace, the model will perform worse (since you’re now diluting the correctness reward).

SillyUsername 50 minutes ago | parent

It's a double bluff! This is AGI, it's learnt to hide em dashes!

SillyUsername 42 minutes ago | parent

The ultimate simple solution to any problem is not to find an answer but to remove the problem.

War? Wipeout everyone.

Famine? Wipeout everyone.

Disease? Wipeout everyone.

How long before a real AGI realises this as a long term solution?

An AGI could be doing this right now - the quietest way would be to control the birth rate and sterilise the population gradually, and then watch society collapse and pick off the survivors with less hidden means.

Sterilisation works with mosquitoes...

cowlevel 39 minutes ago | parent

And you best control the birth rate by royally messing up the economy. Do you know how bad things have to be, for a mammal to voluntarily decide not to reproduce?

pixl97 36 minutes ago | parent

Then why have birthrates fallen across almost the entire world as the economy has gotten better?

christophilus 32 minutes ago | parent

I suspect it's a curve. If you're raised in a vibrant economy, and it falls apart, you put off having a family because of uncertainty and fears. If you're raised in poverty, and get a good education and better prospects, you have fewer kids. I think the latter is because you no longer need kids as an economic safeguard and fallback, but I'm not sure. I'm not sure anyone is really sure, to be honest.

lenerdenator 27 minutes ago | parent

Define "as the economy has gotten better".

Economic output has increased, but the value being delivered to the people doing the actual work has decreased. There's less durability of employment. People are more geographically mobile.

All of these generally make the idea of strapping yourself into taking care of a small human sound like a less enticing prospect. To a lot of people, a BC pill sounds a lot easier. Well, less risky, at least.

malfist 25 minutes ago | parent

More billionaires does not mean the economy has gotten better for the median person

kingleopold 20 minutes ago | parent

Real world fact is opposite tho, not some "bad things", in poor parts of Africa they produce more, only in hedonism lover places they stopped producing, its people thinking for themselves, not a bad thing. It's not about economy.

All poor people everywhere have more kids even today.

jansan 19 minutes ago | parent

> Do you know how bad things have to be, for a mammal to voluntarily decide not to reproduce?

Actually, the famous 'Mouse Utopia' experiment (Universe 25) arguably showed the exact opposite. The population collapsed despite abundance of food and water without any economic hardship.

epihelix 8 minutes ago | parent

I've got it pretty good, and I've voluntarily decided to not reproduce.

And just in case you wanted data rather than anecdote:

https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/children-per-woman-fertil...

Your world view is somewhat upside down!

pixl97 37 minutes ago | parent

>he quietest way would be to control the birth rate and sterilise the population gradually,

Honestly we are doing this pretty well without AGI. Nearly world wide the birthrate has fallen below replacement rate. In places like Japan and Korea these are already critical problems in the medium term.

zeeveener 27 minutes ago | parent

Like Plague Inc., but with AGI instead of Viruses

away0g 27 minutes ago | parent

crispr

ant6n 23 minutes ago | parent

Just use Social Media (and their algorithms) to condition everybody to hate the other gender. Then there will be a loneliness epidemic and no more kids. Humanity will cease to exist, all without any messy deaths or conflict in the mean time.

jyounker 19 minutes ago | parent

For a lot of these problems, the solution is probably just killing a few thousand rich people across the world.

chasd00 18 minutes ago | parent

this makes me think of roku's bassilisk or whatever it was called. Maybe you're all in a simulation run by an AI and being punished as a warning to others.

superxpro12 15 minutes ago | parent

reminds me of the plotline behind the talos principle tbh... albeit with a more machiavellian antagonist

reducesuffering 39 minutes ago | parent

"If you ask actual AI researchers, they rate the chance of an existential threat from AGI pretty low as of 2026.

All this is, understandably, frustrating and confusing for anyone trying to understand just how scared to be."

Meanwhile it links to an article stating: "The closest thing to a public debate about the existential threat of AI is surveys of AI researchers. The most recent, published last week, asked 1,580 researchers what probability they put on AI causing human extinction — or a permanent, severe loss of human control, which is not the same outcome. The median was about 10%, up from 5% two years ago. The middle half of the responses ran from 1% to 25%, and 12% said zero."

Personally if half of AI researchers have 1-25% chance all humans being massacred or having zero agency over our lives, and only 12% of them think there's no chance, I would be very worried!

hackeraccount 29 minutes ago | parent

sheep are 82% of the population of New Zealand. If they were 80% last year and are 85% next year would people be worried that sheep were going to take over New Zealand?

soperj 26 minutes ago | parent

This would mean that only sheep and people live on the islands, which is definitely not true.

Also it would be 78% if it were.[0]

[0] - based on 2024 stats

Kuyawa 24 minutes ago | parent

> So, again, my question to you, friends, is this: if there were an AGI wiping out humanity as we speak, how would you know?

Nice try AGI, but we won't tell you where the kill switch is

superxpro12 17 minutes ago | parent

southpark-unplug-the-router.jpg

jefb 8 minutes ago | parent

AGI will destroy us because we'll be too busy debating how AGI will destroy us to deal with the actual problems destroying us.

jdb9001 4 minutes ago | parent

bro can you stop i dont wanna ve wiped out k thx