I don't even know what to say here. Cool scam I guess

https://xcancel.com/herasight/status/2057888072092856823

Encyclical from the pope about the dangers of AI, mostly sane actually: (provided link skips quite a bit about social justice and referencing previous literature)

https://www.vatican.va/content/leo-xiv/en/encyclicals/documents/20260515-magnifica-humanitas.html#Artificial_intelligence

EDIT, snippets:

107. We cannot be satisfied with [...] the so-called “alignment” of AI [..] without [..] openly discussing the ethical frameworks involved and subjecting them to shared standards of social justice. Otherwise, those who control AI will impose their own moral vision, which will become the invisible infrastructure of these systems. A more moral AI is not enough if that morality is determined by a few. [...]

117. [ about post and transhumanism ] From the perspective of the Church’s Social Doctrine, the key issue is not the use of technology as such, but the vision that underlies it. If the human being is treated as something to be perfected or surpassed, it becomes easier to accept that some lives are less useful, less desirable or less worthy. In the name of progress, “necessary sacrifices” may begin to be justified, placing the burden on the most vulnerable in pursuit of a supposed optimization of the species. [...]

Rhythms of the body are showcased in the scores of dances performed daily across the continent [inaudible] in Uganda, Kpanlogo in Ghana, Nganda in Gambia, [inaudible] in Cameroun, Sindimba [phonetics] in Tanzania, [inaudible] in Nigeria and so on.

Imagine if this was about European music and naming various cultures inside Europe, if all of them would be the [inaudible] people.

"There are some good uses for 'AI' like making transcriptions", they tell me. "No need to pay people to do transcriptions, this is good for accessibility, nope, no issues whatsoever with using 'AI' transcriptions everywhere" /s

In the latest episode of "behold the power of Mythos" from The Hacker News - Claude Mythos AI Finds 10,000 High-Severity Flaws in Widely Used Software

I distilled it so you don't have to.

Of these vulnerabilities, 6,202 have been classified as high- or critical-severity flaws impacting more than 1,000 open-source projects.

That 10,000 count didn't even survive until paragraph 3.

Subsequent analysis of these [6202] vulnerability candidates has identified that 1,726 are valid true positives.

Ah fuck. 1726. But wait, a bad infographic has entered the ring!

23,019 potential vulnerability candidates

Ok now we're talking.

1,900 Reviewed by external security firms

Wait, what? Why those? Why only those?

1726 confirmed positive

You couldn't even cherry pick the valid ones?

467 reported to maintainers

Where did the other 1259 go? Maybe this other part of the flowchart will go better...

1,129 reported direct to maintainers by Anthropic, at their request (May contain false positives)

1129 + 467 = 1596 total reported to maintainers

Most of them just spammed at open source maintainers. Right. Maybe Anthropic's media release has the goods!

1,752 of those high- or critical-rated vulnerabilities have now been carefully assessed by one of six independent security research firms, or in a small number of cases by ourselves

Slightly lower than the 1900, but ok, whatever.

Of these, 90.6% (1,587) have proved to be valid true positives, and 62.4% (1,094) were confirmed as either high- or critical-severity

1587 is lower than the infographic's 1726 confirmed positives.... But 10% of 10000 high sev is still something, right?

On maintainers’ request, we sometimes disclose bugs directly, without further assessment. We’ve now reported 1,129 such unvetted bugs, of which Mythos Preview estimated that 175 were high- or critical-severity.

I'm sure those maintainers enjoyed that 16% high+ sec rate based on Mythos' own estimations. But wasn't that 1129 the bulk of your reports?

We estimate that we’ve disclosed 530 high- or critical-severity bugs to maintainers so far. There are a further 827 confirmed vulnerabilities (estimated as high- or critical-severity in the same manner) that we’re aiming to disclose as quickly as possible.

530 is only a third of the reports you made to maintainers...

65 of those have been given public advisories

The infographic says 88.

I'd ask if they were massaging their financials like they massaged 65 advisories, but we know they are.

23,019 potential vulnerability candidates of all severities, 65 advisories. If you printed the code out and drunkenly threw darts at it you'd probably hit the same level of accuracy.

jqwik maintainer's anti gen AI activism makes clanker crankers sad

From github thread:

I can't actually believe someone would be so childish and put this nonsense into their repo.

Actively opposing hyper-scaled GenAI and agentic coding is an ethics-related decision. Those who have not followed the long-going discussion may want to start reading up here: https://blog.johanneslink.net/2025/11/04/to-gen-or-not-to-gen/

Thus, one can argue that my ethical judgement is wrong or based on wrong assumptions. One could also argue that the measures I decided to take come with more down-side than up-side. Calling it childish, however, reveals IMO that the accuser has not seriously thought about the topic.

It’s probably a coincidence, but there have been a whole bunch of minor regression bugs in recent point releases of rsync, and also there are a whole bunch of commits from “tridge and claude”.

While looking at ACX comments for the you should let claude vote for you thing I saw someone saying that the lumina guy (gobble designer microbes instead of brushing your teeth, boosted by siskind and aella who got free samples) has apparently pivoted to AI with a startup about producing AI generated literature around positive human-AI interactions to influence future generations of LLMs towards favorable alignment.

I think the later got mentioned here some time or other but I didn't realize it was also the teeth bacteria successor grift.

I've not seen this shared here yet so I thought I'd share: Is AI Profitable Yet? https://isaiprofitable.com/

back when LLMs started to get widespread and it became clear that they always make errors and you can only spot the errors if you're an expert who already knows the answers, because the errors are disguised with plausibility, people would tell me, "oh but they're useful for some things, like making summaries".

four years and billions of dollars and devastation to "improve" them later, and I see from this Spotify screenshot that "AI summaries" are going well:

https://lbpost.com/news/education/california-state-university-renews-controversial-systemwide-contract-with-openai

A CSU spokesperson confirmed to EdSource on Wednesday that the university will pay $13 million a year for three years to provide systemwide access to its more than 470,000 students and 63,000 faculty and staff. The previous 18-month subscription cost $17 million and expires at the end of June.

Are we so locked in we're going to put up with a 10% price hike? Couldn't be bothered to get a new vendor with a better deal, or use the Google one they are also paying for, or just use the free one? This is where the tuition increases are going, this is how we want to spend our taxes? :(

Something seems to be lost on my peers today: it’s still easy to not use AI. The food we eat, clothes we wear, and every electronic device we touch may embody innumerable injuries to the world, and all this is inescapable. Eschewing AI is one thing that we can actually do to live out ethics that affirm values of human and environmental rights. It’s almost a gift! Just use a computer the same way you did three years ago!

https://www.eamoncaddigan.net/posts/ai-in-2026/

our favorite techno-fascist hacker has posted a plea for money to buy a house in the most expensive place in the world and to exclusively fly around in private jets because she's the best at writing code to multiple matrices and everyone has been so unjustly mean to her. https://justine.lol/animus/

CW: creepy dudes

A few days ago, a LWer of 15 years wrote a long very weird post about how flirting works:

https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/w3y9G4ybNb3rmTgev/why-physical-attractiveness-matters-for-men-s-dating

It made the frontpage.

Someone tried to set him right with both personal anecdotes and Aella-style research:

https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/ytzrakjgcvCfLCCZp/contra-wentworth-on-physical-attractiveness-for-men

Here's original poster thanking for the update, and writing

My biggest update was... five hours!?!? Going through the list of women I've slept with, the median is around 30 minutes of direct interaction between first meeting and sex. Granted, some of that was at RMN, but even without those cases the median is still around 30-60 minutes. Five hours sounds absolutely insane to me. That probably explains a large chunk of my confusion; apparently people are spending very large amounts of time flirting/courting/etc.

These are just very weird people.

good morning

that fuckin company had another funding round

the further one reads, the more depressing it gets

Joining them are strategic infrastructure partners—Micron, Samsung, and SK hynix

cool so it's going to be even longer before one can buy affordable computers again

I wish all of this a very fuck off and stop already :|

At this point I'm starting to suspect that AI thought leaders like being booed for giving anti-human speeches. Sundar is looking forward to it!

https://www.businessinsider.com/sundar-pichai-google-graduation-speech-stanford-ai-backlash-eric-schmidt

Google CEO Sundar Pichai is scheduled to deliver the commencement speech at Stanford next month. [...] "These graduates are actually both going to be a big part of driving that progress and also dealing with the impact," he added, referring to AI.