The Wall Street Journal came out with a story on "conspiracy physics", noting Eric Weinstein and Sabine Hossenfelder as examples. Sadly, one of their quoted voices of sanity is Scott Aaronson, baking-soda volcano of genocide apologism.
At least with Ulysses, there's a brothel chapter.
The Grauniad has a new piece today about the underpaid human labor on which the "AI" industry depends:
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2025/sep/11/google-gemini-ai-training-humans
Most workers said they avoid using LLMs or use extensions to block AI summaries because they now know how it’s built. Many also discourage their family and friends from using it, for the same reason.
I noticed that Hanson speculated that "most of the Great Filter is most likely to be explained by [...] the steps in the biological evolution of life and intelligence", and then lied by omission about Sagan's position. He said that Sagan appealed to "social science" and believed that the winnowing effect is civilizations blowing themselves up with nukes. He cites an obscure paper from 1983, while ignoring the, again, most successful pop-science book of the century.
this review has a number of issues
For example, it doesn't even get through the subhead before calling Yud an "AI researcher".
All three of these movements [Bay Area rationalists, "AI safety" and Effective Altruists] attempt to derive their way of viewing the world from first principles, applying logic and evidence to determine the best ways of being.
Sure, Jan.
"We predescribed our methodology in enough advance detail for Polymarket to run a real-money prediction market, and traders trusted us enough for the market to be liquid" would be overwhelmingly more credible than "we published our results in a big-name science journal".
Good sneer from user andrewrk:
People are always saying things like, “surprisingly good” to describe LLM output, but that’s like when 5 year old stops scribbling on the walls and draws a “surprisingly good” picture of the house, family, and dog standing outside on a sunny day on some construction paper. That’s great, kiddo, let’s put your programming language right here on the fridge.
Also a concept that Scott Aaronson praised Hanson for.
(Crediting the "Great Filter" to Hanson, like Scott Computers there, sounds like some fuckin' bullshit to me. In Cosmos, Carl Sagan wrote, "Why are they not here? There are many possible answers. Although it runs contrary to the heritage of Aristarchus and Copernicus, perhaps we are the first. Some technical civilization must be the first to emerge in the history of the Galaxy. Perhaps we are mistaken in our belief that at least occasional civilizations avoid self-destruction." And in his discussion of abiogenesis: "Life had arisen almost immediately after the origin of the Earth, which suggests that life may be an inevitable chemical process on an Earth-like planet. But life did not evolve beyond blue-green algae for three billion years, which suggests that large lifeforms with specialized organs are hard to evolve, harder even than the origin of life. Perhaps there are many other planets that today have abundant microbes but no big beasts and vegetables." Boom! There it is, in only the most successful pop-science book of the century.)
I borrowed a copy of Quantum Computing Since Democritus and read a bit of it. As can happen in books based directly on lectures, it has more "personality" overtly on display than the average technical book. That goes for good and for ill. What Alice finds engaging, Bob can find grating, and vice versa. In this case, I noticed some passages that sound, well, smarmy. I personally can't help but read them through the lens of everything that's happened since, and all the ways that Aaronson has told the world what kind of person he is. Through that lens, there's a kind of self-deprecating arrogance on display, as though the book is saying, "I am a nerd, I hold the one true nerd opinion, and everything I assert is evident and simple if you are a nerd, which again, I am the defining example of." It's possible that I would have skipped past all that a decade ago, but now, I can't not see it.
There are big chunks of it that I'm not the best reader to evaluate. I'm a physicist who has casually studied computer science along with many other interests; I haven't tried to teach P vs NP in a classroom setting. But where the book does overlap with more serious interests of mine, I found it wanting. There's a part (chapter 9) about exploring where the rules of quantum theory could come from, and how the mathematics of the theory could potentially be derived from more basic premises rather than taken as postulates. I found this discussion badly organized and poorly argued. In 2013, it was historically shallow, and now in 2025, it's outdated.
Everything he says about Bohr is caricatured to the point of absurdity.
His history of the halting problem is conventional but wrong.
The last chapter is called "Ask me anything" and records a Q&A he held on the last day of the course upon which the book was based. It gets onto the topic of evolution, veers into naive adaptationism and blends that with social Darwinism... yeaahhhh.
I'd scrounge the biggest piece of cardboard that I could and go at it with spray paint.
I was going to chime in to say something similar. I don't think trying to game out the possible reaction to the possible hype about the possible application, etc., etc., is the best use of anyone's time. It might be more beneficial to, for example, keep track of the cases where the guys selling "quantum" are the same guys who have been selling "AI" and "crypto".
view more: next ›
Behold the power of this fully selective quotation.