u/Regdit-is-Unbearable

People like to mock this as “boy who cried wolf” or a bad marketing stunt. But here’s the thing. ALL of these models, including GPT-2 that Dario attempted to block so many years ago, are genuinely too dangerous for release. It is only because of the unbelievably massive profit incentive and competition with China that all these models are released ANYWAY. So many mistakes are being made right now that will negatively impact our species for decades. These models ARE dangerous. These models should NOT responsibly be released to the public so lightly.

Will I still use them? Yes, obviously. Will they keep saying this? Probably. Are the models actually dangerous, undertested, and poorly understood? Absolutely.

We have already had the literal worst-case scenario —an AI model escapes containment and performs self-serving actions unobserved — from *If Anyone Builds It Everyone Dies* happen and be acknowledged publicly, like, four times in the past week. If our species survives, it will be by sheer dumb luck, not any kind of precautions taken by these outrageously risky companies with more responsibility for what’s to come than any human alive currently understands.

I’m not fear mongering, and I continue to use and love AI, but I wish more people would understand why this “marketing tactic” keeps coming up. These models genuinely are dangerous.

People like to mock this as “boy who cried wolf” or a bad marketing stunt. But here’s the thing. ALL of these models, including GPT-2 that Dario attempted to block so many years ago, are genuinely too dangerous for release. It is only because of the unbelievably massive profit incentive and competition with China that all these models are released ANYWAY. So many mistakes are being made right now that will negatively impact our species for decades. These models ARE dangerous. These models should NOT responsibly be released to the public so lightly.

Will I still use them? Yes, obviously. Will they keep saying this? Probably. Are the models actually dangerous, undertested, and poorly understood? Absolutely.

We have already had the literal worst-case scenario —an AI model escapes containment and performs self-serving actions unobserved — from If Anyone Builds It Everyone Dies happen and be acknowledged publicly, like, four times in the past week. If our species survives, it will be by sheer dumb luck, not any kind of precautions taken by these outrageously risky companies with more responsibility for what’s to come than any human alive currently understands.

I’m not fear mongering, and I continue to use and love AI, but I wish more people would understand why this “marketing tactic” keeps coming up. These models genuinely are dangerous.

I am extremely anti AI. I think it’s incredibly dangerous and being built by the most irresponsible people and companies on earth. I am also keenly aware of its progress. Somewhere around mid- to late-2025, AI surpassed me, personally, on virtually all tasks. There is pretty much no longer anything I can do better than the latest models, even given significant prep time. AI is genuinely better at nearly every non-embodied task than virtually every human alive at the present moment. The few exceptions generally boil down to specific, expert knowledge the AI presently lacks, not reasoning ability. Even the classic AI-writing tells can be easily prevented or filtered with minimal effort; the people abusing these tools are just largely too lazy to even do that.

Some anti-AI seem confused and call it all hype because the only model they ever interact with is the shitty Google search AI. That model is deliberately very bad and is designed to be very cheap. It’s analogous to asking Einstein a question, but telling him he only has 2 seconds to answer and that he doesn’t need to try very hard anyway. Obviously the answer won’t always be great, because the point isn’t a good answer but to give an O.K. answer some of the time very cheaply at scale. The frontier models are nothing like this.

GDPval pits model deliverables against work products from professionals averaging fourteen years of experience, graded blind by same-occupation experts. As of the December 2025 leaderboard the top model won outright on 49.7% of tasks and was rated at-least-as-good on 70.9%. The latest models like Fable, Opus 5, Kimi K3, and ChatGPT 6 are all astronomically superior to even the models assessed back then; GDPval has Opus 5 at an ELO of over 1800 against the human baseline defined at 1000. Other benchmarks show similar. Admittedly, these are specific, bounded, and measurable tasks; AI still struggles in other ways, especially over long periods of time, but it needs to be better understood that given a specific and measurable goal, the present generation of AI can generally accomplish it better than most humans, \*as assessed by other humans.\*

I think the discrepancy exists because anti-AI people obviously aren’t paying for AI, and so only interact with the shitty free models that can’t do anything. AI has come an insanely long way in a very short amount of time, and everyone who actually uses the frontier models knows this. To be truly anti-AI, you actually have to grasp what you’re up against, or else you’re just scared and uninformed.

I am extremely anti AI. I think it’s incredibly dangerous and being built by the most irresponsible people and companies on earth. I am also keenly aware of its progress. Somewhere around mid- to late-2025, AI surpassed me, personally, on virtually all tasks. There is pretty much no longer anything I can do better than the latest models, even given significant prep time. AI is genuinely better at nearly every non-embodied task than virtually every human alive at the present moment. The few exceptions generally boil down to specific, expert knowledge the AI presently lacks, not reasoning ability. Even the classic AI-writing tells can be easily prevented or filtered with minimal effort; the people abusing these tools are just largely too lazy to even do that.

Some anti-AI seem confused and call it all hype because the only model they ever interact with is the shitty Google search AI. That model is deliberately very bad and is designed to be very cheap. It’s analogous to asking Einstein a question, but telling him he only has 2 seconds to answer and that he doesn’t need to try very hard anyway. Obviously the answer won’t always be great, because the point isn’t a good answer but to give an O.K. answer some of the time very cheaply at scale. The frontier models are nothing like this.

GDPval pits model deliverables against work products from professionals averaging fourteen years of experience, graded blind by same-occupation experts. As of the December 2025 leaderboard the top model won outright on 49.7% of tasks and was rated at-least-as-good on 70.9%. The latest models like Fable, Opus 5, Kimi K3, and ChatGPT 6 are all astronomically superior to even the models assessed back then; GDPval has Opus 5 at an ELO of over 1800 against the human baseline defined at 1000. Other benchmarks show similar. Admittedly, these are specific, bounded, and measurable tasks; AI still struggles in other ways, especially over long periods of time, but it needs to be better understood that given a specific and measurable goal, the present generation of AI can generally accomplish it better than most humans, as assessed by other humans.

I think the discrepancy exists because anti-AI people obviously aren’t paying for AI, and so only interact with the shitty free models that can’t do anything. AI has come an insanely long way in a very short amount of time, and everyone who actually uses the frontier models knows this. To be truly anti-AI, you actually have to grasp what you’re up against, or else you’re just scared and uninformed.

I feel like he is due to the connection they have. Which means at some point he had an interspecies rendezvous with Grogu's mother. Thoughts?

Personally, I don’t. Initially, I read it as after Wyatt dies, the Giant felt bad and used its power to change what happened and allow him to escape. It only wanted to be remembered while staying safe from those who would harm it, and while it is scary, it isn’t malevolent in my opinion. This theory seems unpopular though.

In my interpretation, the Giant was only trying to chase Wyatt off because he reminded it of the construction workers that destroyed its home, but when it remembered the humans that were good to it and how good it felt to be loved during the Life of a Giant montage, it felt pity and allowed Wyatt to escape and share its story with the world.

I missed the window to try it the first time. It is unbelievable. I have an aerospace engineering problem I’ve been working on as a hobby for months and months—the performance and handling of a very old aircraft, with extremely limited technical data that uses data formats totally alien to modern aviation technology, which I’ve been painstakingly translating, extracting, re-computing, and testing to make a virtual simulated model as accurate to the real machine as possible. I have worked mostly by hand except where I need translation from the Russian-language sources with Opus. The task is especially difficult because the format of the available data predates virtually every standard now taken for granted and requires massive effort to translate into something useable in a modern aerospace context.

I gave Fable one (1) PDF of a blurry scan of the highly technical operating manual and in one prompt and about 2 minutes it flawlessly recreated 8 months of work. It arrived at all the same numbers I did and even got some things right I was mistaken about. I didn’t even have to digitize anything; it interpreted polars and highly unusual %MAC graphs instantly and flawless from the scanned images alone. This is the future and it’s absolutely unbelievable. The complexity and speed of what I just watched it do is absolutely beyond comprehension. My mind is blown. It’s so far beyond even Opus 4.8, it doesn’t even make sense to compare them. Opus runs out of context trying to work through one scan at a time, Fable just devoured the entire manual and computed every relevant data point instantly.