2 ms·

> Does anyone really predict insect drones _in production_ 3 years from now The industrial expansion timelinen as described in AI 2027 is way too compressed; I

> Does anyone really predict insect drones _in production_ 3 years from now The industrial expansion timelinen as described in AI 2027 is way too compressed; I don't think any AI doomer believes that. The dynamics are plausible though, even without China stealing the weights.

AlexErrant 16d ago
Literally 2 days ago, from a former Anthropic researcher: > The people building AI earnestly believe that it could kill us all by the end of the decade. This is not a marketing stunt. https://x.com/hilbertspaess/status/2097476203863224394 https://x.com/hilbertspaess/status/2097476203863224394 > The dynamics are plausible Please elaborate: what dynamics? This is rather vague. My point is that AI can't grind real world physics/chemistry/engineering. What dynamics are in play here?
- mf2hd 16d ago
  Solve the grinding then: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41524-026-01964-8 https://www.nature.com/articles/s41524-026-01964-8
  - AlexErrant 16d ago
    This doesn't solve grinding? If it did, we'd see results by now (Published: 27 January 2026), and there's months of delay between submission and publication. I'm willing to be wrong, but I'm just not seeing anything worth doomering over. There are multiple companies throwing AI at materials discovery; a research paper about a "data-driven framework" is about as unthreatening to my thesis as it gets. I'm willing to cede the point if say, Radical releases ~3 new materials that have commercial applicability and ~3x some useful metric e.g. tensile strength, but until then, to my amateur eye, it looks like AI+Real World is missing its ChatGPT moment.
- naveen99 15d ago
  I think if organized crime couldn’t conquer the world, ai doesn’t have a chance. I mean it would be defeating by the enemy yelling “mitochondria !!!!”
- pizza234 12d ago
  Right. I was referring to the basic set of conditions/steps necessary for the given scenario to develop. Off the top of my head: 1. Loss of control in terms of our ability to assess alignment (no longer possible to determine whether an AI is truly aligned); this is happening already (doesn't imply that there are misaligned AIs right now, though) 2. Loss of control in terms of human comprehension of AI outputs - reaching a point where every action or result, including new discoveries, must itself be evaluated through other AIs; we may be close to this, as OpenAI is releasing an internal "AI researcher", yielding recursive AI development 3. Integration of AI into basic aspects and services of society 4. Extensive access by AI systems to physical tools and infrastructure I think all those points will eventually materialize; sadly I don't see any reason why they won't.
doom2 15d ago
What theft? Modern humans learned from the works of past humans, LLMs learned from the works of modern humans, other LLMs learned from those LLMs. Given that the methods by which Anthropic and OpenAI obtained training data remains a legal gray area, it's not so cut and dry to me that distillation is stealing. It's just a continuation of the long tradition of building knowledge on the knowledge of others.
- applicative 15d ago
  It stuns the mind that anyone can compose such a sophism.
- pizza234 15d ago
  I take it you didn't read AI 2027; it doesn't philosophize about cultural property - it simply narrates that a turning point is China acquiring the Agent's weights through hacking. "Stealing" in this context is simply the strictly legal term.

AlexErrant 16d ago

Literally 2 days ago, from a former Anthropic researcher: > The people building AI earnestly believe that it could kill us all by the end of the decade. This is not a marketing stunt. https://x.com/hilbertspaess/status/2097476203863224394 https://x.com/hilbertspaess/status/2097476203863224394 > The dynamics are plausible Please elaborate: what dynamics? This is rather vague. My point is that AI can't grind real world physics/chemistry/engineering. What dynamics are in play here?

mf2hd 16d ago
Solve the grinding then: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41524-026-01964-8 https://www.nature.com/articles/s41524-026-01964-8
- AlexErrant 16d ago
  This doesn't solve grinding? If it did, we'd see results by now (Published: 27 January 2026), and there's months of delay between submission and publication. I'm willing to be wrong, but I'm just not seeing anything worth doomering over. There are multiple companies throwing AI at materials discovery; a research paper about a "data-driven framework" is about as unthreatening to my thesis as it gets. I'm willing to cede the point if say, Radical releases ~3 new materials that have commercial applicability and ~3x some useful metric e.g. tensile strength, but until then, to my amateur eye, it looks like AI+Real World is missing its ChatGPT moment.
naveen99 15d ago
I think if organized crime couldn’t conquer the world, ai doesn’t have a chance. I mean it would be defeating by the enemy yelling “mitochondria !!!!”
pizza234 12d ago
Right. I was referring to the basic set of conditions/steps necessary for the given scenario to develop. Off the top of my head: 1. Loss of control in terms of our ability to assess alignment (no longer possible to determine whether an AI is truly aligned); this is happening already (doesn't imply that there are misaligned AIs right now, though) 2. Loss of control in terms of human comprehension of AI outputs - reaching a point where every action or result, including new discoveries, must itself be evaluated through other AIs; we may be close to this, as OpenAI is releasing an internal "AI researcher", yielding recursive AI development 3. Integration of AI into basic aspects and services of society 4. Extensive access by AI systems to physical tools and infrastructure I think all those points will eventually materialize; sadly I don't see any reason why they won't.

doom2 15d ago

What theft? Modern humans learned from the works of past humans, LLMs learned from the works of modern humans, other LLMs learned from those LLMs. Given that the methods by which Anthropic and OpenAI obtained training data remains a legal gray area, it's not so cut and dry to me that distillation is stealing. It's just a continuation of the long tradition of building knowledge on the knowledge of others.

applicative 15d ago
It stuns the mind that anyone can compose such a sophism.
pizza234 15d ago
I take it you didn't read AI 2027; it doesn't philosophize about cultural property - it simply narrates that a turning point is China acquiring the Agent's weights through hacking. "Stealing" in this context is simply the strictly legal term.