Anyone calling for an AI pause or slowdown: - Doesn't understand game theory—unilateral restraint just hands the lead to whoever doesn't restrain. - Doesn't understand incentives—the payoff for defecting dwarfs the payoff for cooperating. - Doesn't understand economics—compute compounds, and falling behind isn't a recoverable position. - Doesn't understand systems—you can't centrally steer a decentralized, open-weights world. - Has mistaken dystopian fiction for a policy framework.

No aim too high. No journey too far. No terrain too challenging. We’re going back to the Moon. This time, to stay.

Falcon Heavy launches @NASA’s Nancy Grace Roman Space Telescope from pad 39A in Florida, beginning its more than three-month journey to its destination where it will generate never-before-seen photos of the universe

Holy shit! This might be one of the most underrated releases of the year. Anthropic just gave Claude the ability to control physical lab equipment like microscopes, robotic arms, liquid handlers, lasers. The results are wild: – QuEra had Claude fix quantum computer lasers overnight, unsupervised. A fix that took human experts 5-10 minutes, Claude got down to 6 seconds. Success rate: 58% → 99.3%. – Genentech had Claude self-optimize lab pipetting by scoring its own results against expert baselines, and converged on the right settings on its own. – A university lab went from manual 4 am plate-swapping to Claude Code running the whole workflow hands-free. – Claude even ran qPCR experiments that helped detect human sewage contamination in a California creek. Automated science labs are closer than most people think. Anthropic is somewhat back!

I asked how many craft are here that aren't from this planet. More than 25. Under 100. Discs. Boomerangs. Tic Tacs. He says he's seen them.

AI has helped resolve an important question in statistics. In the area of multiple hypothesis testing, the goal of controlling the false discovery rate (FDR) has been introduced in a seminal paper by Benjamini and Hochberg (1995). They also introduced a method (the Benjamini-Hochberg or BH method) and proved it controls the FDR. This method has been widely adopted in modern high-throughput science, including in genomics, astronomy, economics, etc. The paper has has garnered more than 130,000 citations to date. However Benjamini and Hochberg showed FDR control only when the data for the individual tests are *independent*. In practice, these data are often dependent; a good example is data on genetic variants due to linkage disequilibrium. Later work has focused on extending the validity of the BH procedure, e.g., to a form of positive dependence by Benjamini and Yekutieli (2001). The question of when the BH procedure controls the FDR has remained open. Over the last twenty years, many authors, including Reiner-Benaim (2007), Kim and van de Wiel (2008), Benjamini (2010), Sarkar (2023), Sarkar and Zhang (2025), have conjectured that the BH procedure controls the FDR for two-sided tests using any correlated Gaussian data. These authors have presented both theoretical and empirical evidence supporting, but not directly showing, the conjecture. With the help of AI (specifically GPT-5.6 Sol Pro), I have settled the question in the negative: The Benjamini-Hochberg procedure does *not* generally control the false discovery rate at the desired level for correlated two-sided Gaussian tests. This was done by exhibiting a Gaussian factor model for which, at a nominal level alpha=0.01, the false discovery rate is proved to be FDR>0.0104. There is a lot of interesting commentary to be made: 1. This result should be of interest to everybody in the field of statistics. Emmanuel Candes of Stanford University once called the false discovery rate and the Benjamini-Hochberg procedure "one of the two most important developments in statistics after 1950" (the other being James-Stein shrinkage). The present conjecture is probably the most central question about FDR/BH that was unresolved to date. 2. GPT-5.6 one-shot the problem after 90 minutes of reasoning, whereas with 5.5 I was not able to solve it even after iterating with multiple parallel agents for perhaps 20 hours. So the capability improvement is quite real. Exciting times to live in! 3. The argument is not especially surprising, but it does combine an asymptotic approach (standard for FDR analysis, see e.g., Genovese and Wasserman, Efron, etc) with a numerical certificate in a way that would be pretty non-standard in the field. Once we have the specific example, then straightforward simulations also support that the false discovery rate is indeed higher than the nominal value (see attached fig). 4. The current degree of violation over the nominal level is relatively small (0.104 vs 0.1). So the importance of this result is mainly conceptual. The practical implications remain to be determined. Overall, an exciting development! Preprint is available here (faculty.wharton.upenn.edu/wp…) and will be on arxiv tonight; supporting code is here (github.com/dobriban/BH).

New Anthropic research: A global workspace in language models. Of everything happening in your brain right now, only a tiny fraction is consciously accessible—thoughts you can describe, hold in mind, and reason with. We found a strikingly similar divide inside Claude.

Let’s go! 🔥

This is legitimately insane! This should be front page news everywhere. Mind blown!

The Drake Equation never guaranteed contact, it just made solitude mathematically hard to believe. Every credible UAP disclosure like this nudges the probability curve further from “we are alone.” Mind blown! 💯

Newly released NASA photos from @NASAArtemis mission. Incredible!

A universe in motion seen from the International Space Station during a night pass over Earth (view fullscreen).

Can we all agree that For All Mankind is an excellent show? Well done, @Apple!

Earthset. The Artemis II crew captured this view of an Earthset on April 6, 2026, as they flew around the Moon. The image is reminiscent of the iconic Earthrise image taken by astronaut Bill Anders 58 years earlier as the Apollo 8 crew flew around the Moon.

Historic!

Liftoff. The Artemis II mission launched from @NASAKennedy at 6:35pm ET (2235 UTC), propelling four astronauts on a journey around the Moon. Artemis II will pave the way for future Moon landings, as well as the next giant leap — astronauts on Mars.

The weather's looking good for tomorrow's Artemis II launch, and our teams are getting the rocket ready for liftoff! Read the latest updates on our mission around the Moon: go.nasa.gov/4tiFY4P

Good. We've been a bit behind on the anti-drone technology. Happy to see something being developed that can meaningfully address this new threat.