Completely and utterly missing the point. That those people are being awful should be called out. That many of them are people who can dish it out but can't take it is worth calling out. Creating norms where "weirdo" is now a negative is a problem. Classically, the left was the group that was most willing to embrace people for being weird and recognizing that bullying people for being weird wasn't justified. Call out Musk for being a fascist asshole, sure. Don't help create a norm that undermines exactly the sort of tolerance we should support.

Yes, but life evolved pretty early on in Earth's history. That is evidence (albeit weak evidence) that life can arise somewhat easily.

Well, mostly. I'm not in favor of sexist insults either. But white supremacist lying sociopath, sure.

Sure. If you had said bigoted shit piece instead of weirdo in the first comment I would have agreed with you 100%.

99% Agreement. This absolutely is not a reason to dismiss anything. And the reason I'm not going to agree is just one word "weirdo." There's been this move on the left the last few years to use "weird" as a derogatory term, and it really isn't helpful or productive. But your essential point (without that issue) is correct.

This is a genuinely major achievement, and Starship as a system if they can get everything to look looks like it will really help the world. It is a useful reminder that the world is complicated and bad people can do amazing things. Elon Musk is a terrible person. But dismissing what SpaceX has done is not productive either. And there are a lot of historical examples of this, even just in rocketry. If one dismissed von Braun's rocketry because he was a Nazi, it would be the same problem. Or if one dismissed the math done by Teichmuller because he was a Nazi. It would be nice if technological and other achievement could only be done by morally upstanding people. But that's not the world we live in, which is part of what makes morality so important. The laws of physics don't care about how moral you are. It is up to every one of us to do the right thing.

In the US, in order to file win a lawsuit, one needs standing https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standing_(law), which essentially means one needs to show one has been harmed by the action in question or one is specifically given permission to sue by a specific law. I'm not a lawyer, but I'm having trouble seeing how the people suing can argue they have enough harm that is a form that matters that they'll be able to persuade a judge they have standing.

And he knows this is the "only hypervisor bug left" because...he hasn't been able to find another one yet?

This smells like some dude saying "AI is better than me at my hobby, so I'm taking my ball and going home!"

I'm not sure any of those have money at that level. Aaronson in the past when he was doing quantum computing work refused to take payment or stock from quantum computing companies, so I'd be shocked if he has any money. As for monetary concerns, Hinton explicitly quit his well-paying job at Google so he would be free to talk about AI risk. So the narrative here is the exact opposite. And when the companies talked about deliberately slowing AI growth, stock in AI related companies went down, which undermines the idea that this is anything about their investments. But there's also a serious problem here if someone like Coxon can be dismissed as not having enough knowledge or experience, but people who have been involved in the industry for a long time can be dismissed because they may have financial ties. So can absolutely anyone be dismissed as irrelevant, either lacking in expertise or being too tied in to the industry?

I'm not sure what an hour memory here means, since context windows are measured in tokens. Even six months ago, LLMs could think for well over an hour before producing an output.

This seems odd at multiple levels. First, the people in the foundation labs if anything have more of an idea what is happening than the general population. They are seeing how models are made, what they contribute, and how they go run off the rails. I'm also puzzled by the claim that we're not at the exponential. Two years ago, AI systems could barely do AMC and AIMIE problems, basic high school math contests. Then the AI got to be good enough to do well on Putnam results. Then, early this year, AI got to be good enough to solve multiple open unsolved math problems, including Erdos 1196 https://www.erdosproblems.com/1196 , the Unit Distance Conjecture https://arxiv.org/abs/2605.20695 and many others, and the trends there are just continuing. That's one field, but it is one where the standards are most objective about what is happening. That certainly looks like exponential growth. I'm also puzzled by seeing the labs cannot get the AI to improve themselves is a good standard. From the perspective of a lot of people who are concerned, once that's happening, it is likely too late.

What you mean here is you agree with Yann. But the point is that lots of people who are as qualified as Yann, disagree. So if, as in your first comment, your primary problem with Coxon is lack of experinece, you should find this situation alarming. Worse, your complaint about Coxon was lack of lab experience, but in your new comment you object to people being too deep in the labs to be objective. This leads to the weird situation where no one is in a position to be relevant to listen to.

It is possible that LLM tech has its limits. But people were saying it was hitting its limit 4 years ago, and 3 years ago, and 2 years ago, and a year ago. 4 years ago, people who were saying LLMs were limited would not have predicted they'd be solving unsolved math problems. All those predictions turned out to be wrong. Why should saying it now be more likely? And what if you are wrong here?

So if the concern is these need to come from someone from a company not run by Altman, then we already have that. The OP is about that. And we've had containment breaches reported by Anthropic also. We also had a smaller scale but similar problem reported by an independent security group running an open-weight Kimi. You don't need to trust Sam Altman or anyone associated with him here.

A flyover isn't the problem here. The statement is.

If you want to dismiss Coxon feel free, but he isn't the only one in the article. And outside the article, we have a lot of people who are concerned who are hard to argue aren't experts. Geoffrey Hinton and Yoshua Bengio both got Turing Awards for their work in Deep Learning. (The third who got it is Yann LeCun who isn't worried at all, but Hinton and Bengio is 2/3.) Similarly, Scott Aaronson, who wasn't even that worried about this a few years ago is now highly concerned. Aaronson is one of the world's leading experts in computational complexity, who discovered the algebraization barrier among other things, and whose work lead to the AI watermarking systems. Aaronson just wrote this essay https://scottaaronson.blog/?p=10062. So sure, go dismiss Coxon, but it doesn't impact remotely all the others who are clear experts and are sounding an alarm here.

What needs to happen to decide these aren't PR campaigns and are actual warnings? What would need to occur? Knocking out a power grid? Hacking the Pentagon? Wrecking with air traffic control and making planes crash? I ask in part because when these incidents started happening two months ago, people said that they were just PR and that if they were real we'd start seeing more of them and that seems to be exactly where we are, and yet these are still getting labeled as PR campaigns.

The original quote they are riffing on is "The beatings will continue until morale improves." Essentially this is a variant of the "make a threat, but in a joking fashion, but really functionally a threat" sort of thing that dangerous and abusive people will do. Trump uses versions of this all the time, and it isn't surprising that Hegseth and his people have picked up on this. I'd call this another warning sign about fascism but given everything else that's going on, including a grossly illegal war in Iran, Trump functionally threatening to undermine the upcoming election, and Trump having removed generals and other higher-ups in the military that he sees as insufficiently loyal (read, more likely to actually follow the law and morality when given an illegal order), and this incident becomes almost part of the rounding error.