So yeah, we're actually gonna building this (with @HumamMoin) 👀 Ts gonna be crazy lmao Basically, we’re taking a dumb open-source model and letting it train itself. Might turn this into a research paper too And yeah, minimal AI slop + AI code. We wanna build this ourselves

Guyzz, I built something crazy! Made an AI Devil's Advocate where two agents argue opposite sides on any topic, and a third AI Judge gives a final verdict using LangGraph. Added multi-provider (Groq/Gemini) fallback & PDF exports too!

New from 404 Media: humans are reading ChatGPT conversations OpenAI has hired an army of contractors who read real ChatGPT users' chats. I've seen internal docs, the review system, and real user prompts. Can contain very personal/sensitive information 404media.co/inside-project-l…

Built an open-source CLI tool that reviews your local Git diffs using AI before you commit or push. Instead of switching tabs, just run git review and catch bugs, bad logic, or security risks right inside your terminal. Supports OpenRouter, Gemini, Groq, and local Ollama.

hi lovely people who are creating @framer templates! i want you all to adapt. Revenue of Framer template sales and commissions has dropped significantly, and there are 2 major reasons: No. 1 is AI No. 2 is Framer’s 3.0 marketplace update we can’t do much about the Framer update, but we can do something about reason 1. people are not building websites doing vibecoding, but they still can’t improve their taste. and that’s where your templates come in. AI can help people build a website, but good design, taste and a strong visual direction still matter. and that’s why we’re building a marketplace for Next.js templates. we’re inviting Framer creators to bring their templates to @framertonextjs Marketplace you can take your existing Framer template, convert it into Next.js code, and list it on our marketplace as a licensed code template. you keep selling your design, but now you’re selling it to people who want the actual Next.js code instead of a Framer template. there’s no listing fee. for paid templates, we only take 2% of your monthly template revenue. and there’s another opportunity too. you’ll get 50% affiliate commission for 12 months for every customer who signs up for a paid plan through your template. so you can make money from your template sales and also earn recurring affiliate revenue from the customers you bring. we’re building this for creators who already have great templates and want to keep selling them in a world where AI is making website creation easier. more details about how the marketplace works will be available soon. sign up here :- umarr.in/waitlist

after OpenAI solved Navier-Stokes my Stanford research friend called me at midnight having an existential crisis he spent years doing neurotechnology and regenerative medicine research in Asia, focusing on neural connectivity. but now he truly believes there's a chance that research as we know it will be obsolete in the future. I respect him hella because he chose this path over more traditional and higher-paying careers. he genuinely wants to use his talents to push science forward. I'm not in research, so I honestly didn't know what to tell him. I genuinely feel bad. people see headlines like this as an incredible breakthrough (and rightfully so). but I don't think we fully comprehend what they mean for people who've spent years building their lives solving these problems. AI progress is simultaneously exciting and scary.

BREAKING: OpenAI might have stolen another major proof. In a detailed Mastodon post, which I report in full in the comments, Andreas Thom presents several pieces of evidence suggesting that OpenAI may have trained Astra on conversations in which he and Gábor Kun were working on Gromov’s soficity conjecture, one of the ten problems OpenAI later announced Astra had solved. I know Andreas. We met several times early in our careers. He is an exceptional mathematician, a leading expert on sofic and hyperlinear groups, and one of the most respected scholars in the field. He has spent two decades working on this problem. If his account is correct, this is not a minor dispute over attribution. It would mean that unpublished human work was absorbed into a model and then presented to the world as a breakthrough by the model itself. And if the allegations raised by Levent Alpöge, Tristan Buckmaster, and now Andreas Thom are all substantiated, we are no longer looking at isolated incidents. We may be looking at one of the greatest intellectual scandals in the history of science. AI is not discovering new mathematics. AI is stealing human discovery.

Jensen Huang says that AGI has been achieved. I strongly disagree. GPT-6 performs really well on benchmarks, including ARC-AGI-3. But benchmark performance is not the same as general intelligence. GPT-6 is great at many tasks with fixed goals. It can even solve extremely difficult mathematical problems. But general intelligence is not only solving difficult problems that no human can solve. It is also solving simple but unfamiliar problems that every ten-year-old kid can solve. AGI is not just about solving closed-ended problems. It is about navigating an open-ended world. * Full piece in the first reply. P.S. A new paper on adaptive intelligence will come out in about a month. Stay tuned.

The creator of the C++ programming language, Bjarne Stroustrup, says AI-generated code is not successful and calls the idea of using natural language as a programming language idiotic. He says humans will still write code and use abstraction. According to him, AI generates bloated code with more bugs and security holes, making it hard to validate. He also says the senior developers needed to validate it are starting to retire because they don’t want to deal with validating something that changes every time you change your prompt. He goes on to say that AI is not good at writing safety-critical or performance-critical code: “Now, let’s say that 70 or 80% of the world’s code doesn’t fit that pattern, but it’s that 10, 20% of the code that I’m interested in.”

MIT mathematically proved that AI will destroy the democracy. A Nobel-winning MIT economist published a terrifying paper called "Automation and Repression" As AI and automation replace human labor, wealth concentrates heavily in the hands of a tiny group of capital owners. Inequality skyrockets. When inequality hits a critical mass, workers realize they are being crushed and the threat of a popular revolt spikes. Faced with that threat, the ruling elite are forced to make a choice. They can redistribute the wealth through taxes, or they can use force to keep people down. The paper mathematically proves a dark reality: there is a direct, inescapable link between automation and political repression. The more capital accumulates through AI, the more the elite prefer repression over redistribution. Why? Because sharing the wealth cuts into their power. Funding a police state protects it. It gets worse. The authors modeled what happens when an economy starts inside a clean, stable democracy. As automation advances and capital concentrates at the top, the math shows that the elite eventually find democracy to be a liability. They stop supporting democratic systems. They back a coup. They install a repressive system just to protect their automated wealth. Nobody is voting to end democracy. The technology’s economic incentives just make authoritarian control the logical next step for survival.