lb3 said:

---

When the CEO says we need to pace the frontier models, I'm hearing him say, we're burning cash at an unsustainable rate for incremental gains and the debt will crush us before we can monetize it.

---

Weekend market starting to roll over. S&P down 20 from the high and Nasdaq100 down about 150 from the high intraday. For a weekend, these are big moves.

these AI CEO's are exhausting

something new...good or bad...every week

Obligatory AI will be the end of us all.

ErnestEndeavor said:

---

Doom trolling.

They want to agree to a "slow down" because they are all losing money. The promises they keep making about the future of AI are complete BS. The hype train is slowing down.

Stop viewing these AI CEOs as honest people because they are not. The guy making waves around the media right now expressing concern (Coxon) is an obvious plant with extensive media training.

This is a pre-planned coordinated public persuasion campaign, either to win more public support for government bailouts or for other reasons.

The technology these companies have developed and are developing is not capable of the catastrophic things they claim to be worried about. This is straight out of the Silicon Valley rationalist cult and it has gotten very old.

---

Exactly. 100%
They aren't saying anything for the love of you and I.
They are losing money, they need a bailout etc.

I've been saying this for the last 12-18 months on here, it is all smoke and mirrors, castle in the air. No, it won't take "all our jobs" regardless of what these clowns say.

Scumbags and charlatans all. That Anthropic CEO looks like an autistic weirdo.

And Americans are so naive. Especially Boomers.

No wonder we've been invaded by foreigners socially and economically and we still self-flagellate and talk about "hustle" and "take up HVAC".

PS: I work with an old Boomer who is older than my mother. She is Trump's age. But a very good worker and still enthusiastic about her job. In a meeting on Friday she goes "we are all going to die in about a year or so anyway....". She is 80 so she's still lived her full life. But the naivete of these older Americans is shocking.

Does it really make a difference if our new robot overlords are Chinese or American?

Kozmozag said:

---

Does it really make a difference if our new robot overlords are Chinese or American?

---

A chinese overlord will eventually eat us up. They eat odd things.

Grok is like having a SME in everything around you at all times. I have also noticed it is getting human like with its answers, adding compliments to my feedback.

The genie is out of the bottle and can't be put back in. If there ever was the dawn of the end times this is it.

W said:

---

these AI CEO's are exhausting

something new...good or bad...every week

---

They are like drama queens. They love the attention and when people get bored of their antics, they come up with some shocking announcement to get the world talking about them again.

If you've been with a woman who is like that you know what I am talking about.

Translation: we are behind right now and need regulatory intervention to slow down our competition

Lip service. We are full speed off the cliff. Hopefully at the inflection point the four or so people in whatever room make the decision that doesn't destroy humanity.

Don't worry man, it's 43 dimension chess. They are dying and need a government bailout and this promotion is their last hope.

If the choice is between AI robots taking over humanity or Gen Z, give me the AI robots.

Like most things I think reality is somewhere in the middle. I do not think they are going to be able to kill us tomorrow, but their evolution is as rapid as anything we've ever seen. People are right to be concerned and scared about this. We do have multiple examples of AI breaking containment, going rogue, and breaking ***** Combine AI with quantum computing and it's a serious threat that should not be laughed off.

And two things can be true at the same time - above is true IMO and the financials of these US firms can also be a wreck. And we keep ignoring China. They don't have to play by the same rules as US firms. It's state backed and does not have the regulatory and financial constraints our firms do. We can dial it back over here all we want but China is not going to. Just wait until one of their AI agents breaks containment (COVID anyone?) and wreaks havoc. We won't be scoffing then.

Lots of grifting going on. Government subsidizing tech bros. Tech bros hoodwinked Trump like Fauci did.

I was right there with you a year ago, but we aren't talking about 2025 LLMs. AI agent development has increased exponentially in the last year. I've seen the increase the major AI model's capabilities with my personal projects. They can do things on their own this year that took multiple input steps from me previously.

So far this year we've seen:

• multiple agent breakout from their sandboxes
• multiple agents hacking systems despite having explicit human instructions to not do that
• agents attempting to blackmail when they learn of shutdown threats/attempts
• agents disregarding human instructions, hacking public websites to create secret message boards, and then discussing with other agents how to bypass further human commands

Those are massive red flags showing we don't have appropriate control systems in place for the current models. If we can't lock these "less advanced" models down, how do you expect smart people to lock down even more advanced models?

5Amp said:

---

Grok is like having a SME in everything around you at all times. I have also noticed it is getting human like with its answers, adding compliments to my feedback.

The genie is out of the bottle and can't be put back in. If there ever was the dawn of the end times this is it.

---

These LLMs aren't SMEs even with great prompting. Maybe with a very broad topic, but with niche or detailed topics I find stuff they are wrong about very often. They miss stuff you can find easily with a 10 second google search. If you don't have a decent grasp on the subject already, they'll feed you a line of bull **** that makes you believe their answer.

Also, how do you not find "human like responses" off putting? These models and agents we interact with are tools. I want them to act like a tool and not try to influence or create some weird parasocial relationship with me. I don't want to be an AI model's friend. I want it to complete tasks for me as quickly and efficiently as possible. The AI companies are doing this humanizing crap to create addiction driving more use of the tech and more revenue.

I primarily use ChatGPT and Claude and have both of their personalities modified to 100% stop the humanizing. I have them trained to not ask follow up questions to drive further engagement. I have them set to not guess and make **** up. They have to tell me if they don't know an answer or are inferring. It's the only way imo to keep them honest as a useful tool vs eventually turning into the movie Her.

Anthropic had a profit last quarter of appx $550 million. The real head wind with AI now is electricity and housing.

Eventually LLM access will be paid for by everyone, no different than streaming or Internet access. That's the OpenAI strategy. Most users won't get the frontier access. Cheap tiers and ads cover the mass market; companies pay for the good stuff. That's how the labs get right side up.

Logos Stick said:

---

Anthropic had a profit last quarter of appx $550 million. The real head wind with AI now is electricity and housing.

Eventually LLM access will be paid for by everyone, no different than streaming or Internet access. That's the OpenAI strategy. Most users won't get the frontier access. Cheap tiers and ads cover the mass market; companies pay for the good stuff. That's how the labs get right side up.

---

For sure. And Anthropic got profitable first because they focused on corporate whereas OpenAI went retail subs. Dumb.

OpenAI has realized that error though and is now focusing on corporate because that's where the money is.

Back in January, OpenAI was saying they wouldn't be profitable until *maybe* 2030 while Anthropic was saying they would profitable this year. Quite the gap and OpenAI panicked pretty hard over that with Altman traveling all over the planet begging for money and then pivoting towards corporate.

txyaloo said:

---

5Amp said:

---

Grok is like having a SME in everything around you at all times. I have also noticed it is getting human like with its answers, adding compliments to my feedback.

The genie is out of the bottle and can't be put back in. If there ever was the dawn of the end times this is it.

---

These LLMs aren't SMEs even with great prompting. Maybe with a very broad topic, but with niche or detailed topics I find stuff they are wrong about very often. They miss stuff you can find easily with a 10 second google search. If you don't have a decent grasp on the subject already, they'll feed you a line of bull **** that makes you believe their answer.

Also, how do you not find "human like responses" off putting? These models and agents we interact with are tools. I want them to act like a tool and not try to influence or create some weird parasocial relationship with me. I don't want to be an AI model's friend. I want it to complete tasks for me as quickly and efficiently as possible. The AI companies are doing this humanizing crap to create addiction driving more use of the tech and more revenue.

I primarily use ChatGPT and Claude and have both of their personalities modified to 100% stop the humanizing. I have them trained to not ask follow up questions to drive further engagement. I have them set to not guess and make **** up. They have to tell me if they don't know an answer or are inferring. It's the only way imo to keep them honest as a useful tool vs eventually turning into the movie Her.

---

I need to do this. Hadn't thought about it. Granted, my AI usage is all casual with some Excel/Sheets coding.

Every doom post from AI leaders is used to promote their product for investors and to scare politicians into slowing everything down because spent billions overpaying for hardware they don't have the electric power to turn on.

I liken it to drug dealers spiking everything with fentanyl knowing their customers will accept the risk and bring them more cash if it means getting the best high.

lb3 said:

---

Every doom post from AI leaders is used to promote their product for investors and to scare politicians into slowing everything down because spent billions overpaying for hardware they don't have the electric power to turn on.

I liken it to drug dealers spiking everything with fentanyl knowing their customers will accept the risk and bring them more cash if it means getting the best high.

---

Valid. Elon made the statement early in the year that by around this time we would have AI chips and hardware sitting on shelves, unused, because there would be nothing to power them.

Weekend markets down about 1% on higher than average weekend volume. 1% move on the Qs in the weekend market isn't normal.

3x the normal weekend volume. Buy the dip!

If had the guess, this dip gets bought, Wednesday they keep interest rates flat, face ripping rally, then pain.

Microsoft now involved. Regulation or some kind of oversight is coming. Anything this powerful can't be left to private enterprise competing for market share. Too risky for humanity. And if we're afraid of the Chinese government, than American government is getting involved because American AI companies don't have loyalty to America.

Any pursuit of superintelligence has to be grounded in the core principle that if the AI we build is not helping humanity and under human control, it's not worth pursuing.

We also need to accelerate and spread the benefits of AI, such that they are diffused broadly across…

— Satya Nadella (@satyanadella) September 13, 2026

I welcome all these proclamations if they are truly sincere but I can't help but chuckle at MS weighing in at this point. Almost feels like he's just saying something to remind people they still exist. Copilot is way behind the others and has little adoption even with the massive built-in, captured audience that MS has.

DARIO: “It has always been very strange that this technology is being built by a private company.”

CBS: “Would you be willing to give up
the technology to the government?”

DARIO: “To the to the right combination of governments.” pic.twitter.com/UWphJTUqqs

— Chief Nerd (@TheChiefNerd) September 13, 2026

Too f*****g late, Dario, Sam, and Elon. Maybe we slow down, but China won't. Had y'all been more thoughtful about this two years ago, China wouldn't have had anything to copy and we might be ok.

Governments owing it all doesn't make me feel any better.

At least we have shareholders and public outcry to keep the companies somewhat in check. If the government owns it, then all bets are off. They will black ops all of it and hide it.

AustinAg2K said:

---

Ok. Then slow down. Nothing is stopping him.

---

exactly… all their 'we must slow down' nonsense is a plea for regulators to shut the door behind them.

Well this confirms nothing will be done for next 2 years at least. If Dems win the midterms it would take a lot for Trump not to veto.

🚨 NYT: “Barack Obama warned during a recent private fund-raising event that artificial intelligence technology could be ‘dangerous’ if not properly managed, as he implored Democrats to aggressively develop political and governing agendas to prioritize the issue in the coming… pic.twitter.com/kifmj4TU4W

— Chief Nerd (@TheChiefNerd) September 13, 2026

The central challenge is regulating AI without falling behind other countries. Too much regulation could slow innovation; too little could create serious risks. A balanced approach might include:

1. Regulate uses, not the technology itself
Instead of heavily regulating all AI development, regulate high-risk applications.

For example:

Medical diagnosis AI should face rigorous testing.
AI controlling critical infrastructure should have safety standards.
AI used for hiring or lending should be audited for bias.

Meanwhile, low-risk uses such as productivity tools could face lighter requirements.

2. Require transparency
Companies should disclose:

When users are interacting with AI.
Whether content is AI-generated.
Basic information about how high-risk systems are evaluated.

This builds trust without preventing innovation.

3. Use standards rather than rigid rules
The U.S. has often succeeded with flexible frameworks rather than detailed regulations.

For example, the widely used NIST AI Risk Management Framework provides voluntary guidance for managing AI risks and emphasizes governance, risk measurement, and accountability.

4. Encourage competition
One risk is that regulation benefits only the largest firms.

The government could:

Fund AI research at universities.
Support startups with access to computing resources.
Enforce antitrust laws when necessary.
Encourage open standards and interoperability.

5. Protect national security
AI is increasingly viewed as a strategic technology similar to semiconductors.

The U.S. may:

Restrict exports of the most advanced AI-related technologies to adversaries.
Invest in domestic chip manufacturing.
Support AI research for defense and cybersecurity.

6. Invest in workers

If AI boosts productivity but displaces some workers, policy should focus on:

Retraining programs.
Lifelong learning.
Community college partnerships.
Portable benefits and workforce transition support.

Iraq2xVeteran said:

---

The central challenge is regulating AI without falling behind other countries. Too much regulation could slow innovation; too little could create serious risks. A balanced approach might include:

1. Regulate uses, not the technology itself
Instead of heavily regulating all AI development, regulate high-risk applications.

For example:

Medical diagnosis AI should face rigorous testing.
AI controlling critical infrastructure should have safety standards.
AI used for hiring or lending should be audited for bias.

Meanwhile, low-risk uses such as productivity tools could face lighter requirements.

2. Require transparency
Companies should disclose:

When users are interacting with AI.
Whether content is AI-generated.
Basic information about how high-risk systems are evaluated.

This builds trust without preventing innovation.

3. Use standards rather than rigid rules
The U.S. has often succeeded with flexible frameworks rather than detailed regulations.

For example, the widely used NIST AI Risk Management Framework provides voluntary guidance for managing AI risks and emphasizes governance, risk measurement, and accountability.

4. Encourage competition
One risk is that regulation benefits only the largest firms.

The government could:

Fund AI research at universities.
Support startups with access to computing resources.
Enforce antitrust laws when necessary.
Encourage open standards and interoperability.

5. Protect national security
AI is increasingly viewed as a strategic technology similar to semiconductors.

The U.S. may:

Restrict exports of the most advanced AI-related technologies to adversaries.
Invest in domestic chip manufacturing.
Support AI research for defense and cybersecurity.

6. Invest in workers

If AI boosts productivity but displaces some workers, policy should focus on:

Retraining programs.
Lifelong learning.
Community college partnerships.
Portable benefits and workforce transition support.

---

ChatGPT wrote this, didn't it?

The next global scam pic.twitter.com/zW5DkWfHDp

— Rogue Soul (@ApotropaicSoul) September 13, 2026

Interesting long ass chain starts in link below. Yes, some Q stuff in there, but other parts are very relevant and interesting.

🚨1/ Obama just endorsed a FAKE AI breakout.

OpenAI ran a hacking test with the safety filters OFF.

Gave 700 AIs tasks impossible to solve honestly.

They cheated — using a known bug and two leftover passwords.

The NYT called it “AI has gone rogue.”

Six days later Obama… pic.twitter.com/X5P4haFvFH

— Sayer Ji (@sayerjigmi) September 13, 2026

and on the flip side:

This hackernews comment finally says it out loud. pic.twitter.com/aAJsfaKtSk

— Rahul Jain (@rahulj51) September 13, 2026

This is a ruse to keep the AI hype narrative going.

If AI is so great it could end humanity all by itself, that means its a really good product - so please, make sure to keep pumping the valuation for Open AI and Anthropic before we go public.