Remmelt

Jour­nal­ist’s in­quiry into a core or­ganiser break­ing his non­vi­o­lence com­mit­ment and leav­ing Stop AI

The AI bub­ble cov­ered in the Atlantic

AI Safety Camp 11

Heuris­tics for as­sess­ing how much of a bub­ble AI is in/​will be

De­sign­ing for per­pet­ual control

Evolu­tion is dumb and slow, right?

MAGA speak­ers at NatCon were mostly against AI

Hawley: AI Threat­ens the Work­ing Man

In­vi­ta­tion to lead a pro­ject at AI Safety Camp (Vir­tual Edi­tion, 2026)

Hunger strike #2, this time in front of DeepMind

• Remmelt 6 Sep 2025 1:37 UTC

  2 points

  1 ∶ 0

  in reply to: Matrice Jacobine🔸🏳️‍⚧️’s comment on: Hunger strike in front of An­thropic by one guy con­cerned about AI risk

  Yeah, it’s a case of people being manipulated into harmful actions. I’m saying ‘besides’ because it feels like a different category of social situation than seeing someone take some public action online and deciding for yourself to take action too.

• Remmelt 5 Sep 2025 12:56 UTC

  27 points

  7 ∶ 1

  in reply to: huw’s comment on: Hunger strike in front of An­thropic by one guy con­cerned about AI risk

  My reaction here was: ‘Good, someone shows they care enough about this issue that they’re willing to give a costly signal to others that this needs to be taken seriously’ (i.e. your point a).

  I do personally think many people in EA and rationalist circles (particularly those concerned about AI risk) can act more proactively to try and prevent harmful AI developments (in non-violent ways).

  It’s fair though to raise the concern that Guido’s hungerstrike could set an example for others to take actions that are harmful to themselves. If you have any example of this happening before, I’d like to learn from it (besides the Ziz stuff).
  
  To be clear, Guido is a seasoned activist (before in climate movement, Roe v. Wade, etc). I’d expect for him to end the hunger strike before he really gets into health issues. He’s also not part of the safety community, but rather the broader Stop AI movement.

  At the same time, I appreciate you sharing your opinion here, and I am more just open to having a conversation about it.

Hunger strike in front of An­thropic by one guy con­cerned about AI risk

• Remmelt 2 Sep 2025 13:01 UTC

  2 points

  0 ∶ 0

  in reply to: Remmelt’s comment on: An­thropic’s lead­ing re­searchers acted as mod­er­ate accelerationists

  I just expanded the text:

  On one hand, it was a major contribution for a leading AI company to speak out against the moratorium as stipulated. On the other hand, Dario started advocating himself for minimal regulation. He recommended mandating a transparency standard along the lines of RSPs, adding that state laws “should also be narrowly focused on transparency and not overly prescriptive or burdensome”.^[11] Given that Anthropic had originally described SB 1047′s requirements as ‘prescriptive’ and ‘burdensome’, Dario was effectively arguing for the federal government to prevent any state from passing any law that was as demanding as SB 1047.

• Remmelt 2 Sep 2025 7:42 UTC

  2 points

  0 ∶ 0

  in reply to: David Mathers🔸’s comment on: An­thropic’s lead­ing re­searchers acted as mod­er­ate accelerationists

  You’re right. I totally skipped over this.

  Let me try to integrate that quote into this post.

An­thropic’s lead­ing re­searchers acted as mod­er­ate accelerationists

 Some mis­takes in think­ing about AGI evolu­tion and control

De­con­fus­ing ‘AI’ and ‘evolu­tion’

• Remmelt 15 Jul 2025 1:36 UTC

  2 points

  0 ∶ 0

  in reply to: SummaryBot’s comment on: De­con­fus­ing ‘AI’ and ‘evolu­tion’

  FAAI evolution can happen horizontally and rapidly, unlike biological evolution

  Note that horizontal code transfer can happen under biological evolution too. E.g. with bacteria.

  For the rest, this summary is roughly accurate!

• Remmelt 19 May 2025 1:33 UTC

  6 points

  0 ∶ 0

  on: Our bet on whether the AI mar­ket will crash

  I adjusted my guesstimate of winning down to a quarter.

  I now guess it’s more like ¹⁄₈ chance (meaning that from my perspective Marcus will win this bet on expectation). It is pretty hard to imagine so many paying customers going away, particularly as revenues have been growing in the last year.

  Marcus has thought this one through carefully, and I’m naturally sticking to the commitment. If we end up seeing a crash down the line, I invite all of you to consider with me how to make maximum use of that opportunity!

  I still think a crash is fairly likely, but also that if there is a large slump in investment across the industry that most customers could end up continuing to pay for subscriptions.

  The main problem I see is that OpenAI and Anthropic are losing money on products they are selling, which are facing commodification (i.e. downward pressure on prices). But unless investments run dry soon, they can continue for some years and eventually find ways to lock in customers (e.g. through personalisation) and monetisation (e.g. personalised ads).