Yes, because it is really important to smoke, try heroin, download CSAM (!!!), or burn plastic, etc etc to be able to discuss the dangers and harms of those activities.

One of the things that really shines through in these AI debates is how many of the antis refuse to actually use or touch the thing they're trying to criticize, which leads to claims that have this religious tenor and bear no resemblance whatsoever to real-world manifestations of AI.

This past of my thread has attracted a lot of responses of the form "Nuh-uh! You have to prove *your* claim!" and I think it's worth reiterating that the burden of proof lies with the people making the claim, not those of us refuting it. Why bother refuting it at all? >>

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, and I am not the one making the extraordinary claim, so it is not my job to specify what the evidence should be. >>

But speaking of staying in one's lane, can we PLEASE switch the default position from "It's fine to use 'AI' for this thing I'm not an expert in" to "Yeah, I'd be really skeptical of any use cases and need to see strong evidence that it's okay, but I'm not the one who can produce that evidence"?

No two words send AI industry advocates into fits of rage more than "stochastic parrots." The question is: Why? Why do they get so worked up over this particular critical framework time and time again? I sat down with @emilymbender.bsky.social, one of the coauthors of the original paper, to discuss

I appreciated this chance to go on Bloomberg Tech, though it's always a bit odd to have a conversation with a reporter who is really interested in what's effectively a fictional story. www.bloomberg.com/news/videos/...

I can’t emphasize this enough — “AI” wasn’t born corrupt and toxic. For ~75 years, it was mathematicians and scientists doing interesting, thoughtful work and trying to solve problems, making only the usual human mistakes. What “AI” did to machine learning is as tragic as what it did to artists.

On the next Mystery AI Hype Theater 3000 livestream, we’re so excited to chat with authors of the new book, Against Tech Oligarchy! @js-tan.bsky.social and Clarissa Redwine will join me and @alexhanna.bsky.social to chat about tech industry labor: Mon, Oct 5, noon Pacific twitch.tv/dair_institute

If the critics had only moved on from the “stochastic parrot”!111! www.politico.com/news/2026/10...

I think at this point one would be hard pressed to find someone who critiques AI who hasn’t used AI within the last week, even if just to find a restaurant menu. It’s through these subtle semi-connected matrices that we will weaken our concepts of citation and triangulation.

On the next Mystery AI Hype Theater 3000 livestream, we’re so excited to chat with authors of the new book, Against Tech Oligarchy! @js-tan.bsky.social and Clarissa Redwine will join me and @alexhanna.bsky.social to chat about tech industry labor: Mon, Oct 5, noon Pacific twitch.tv/dair_institute

New from @timnitgebru.blacksky.app and me: "It is high time for us to regulate usage of systems sold as “AI”, not because they are magical machines, but because they are error-prone products that shouldn’t be used in high stakes scenarios." www.theguardian.com/commentisfre...

Guys no one doubts that OpenAI and Anthropic are responsible if their models go rogue. The problem is that until VERY recently, it was not accepted that it was possible for a bunch of machines to escape virtual captivity, illicitly communicate, collectively strategize, and hack real-world systems.

Just listened to the latest @dreamingagainstthemachine.com and while there's some good stuff here, some of it also needs a response: www.dreamingagainstthemachine.com/episode-24-t... 🧵>>

Does my Speak-n-Spell feel pain when I type O-U-C-H? The jury is out. Philosophers and neuroscientists say that's fucking stupid, but I called a guy from the Center for Pretending that Household Electronics Are Sentient and he said there's no way to know for sure.

Hm. As @timnitgebru.blacksky.app + @emilymbender.bsky.social have already laid out: These #OpenAI *systems* aren’t “going rouge.” The Truth is that these LLMs are built by Nefarious people who are so Rapacious and Irresponsible that they (the Humans) are biggest Risks www.nytimes.com/2026/09/25/t...

There seems to be a coordinated talking point among the EA folks that the "standard" approach to "AI" on "the Left" is "AI is just stochastic parrots so no need to worry about it". (Sorry for all the scare quotes, but y'know) >>

Excited to announce that I've signed a contract with @mitpress.bsky.social for a new book! It's about ImageNet, a dataset of 14 million photos. Without it, we likely wouldn't have "AI" as we currently know it. I've been thinking about this book for over 5 years, and am excited to finally write it.