u/SharpCartographer831

tl;dr: The White House is setting up a program that would let vetted private U.S. companies carry out offensive cyber operations against foreign criminal networks on behalf of the government. Operations would require federal approval and oversight, and could include infiltrating, disrupting, degrading, or disabling foreign cyber infrastructure.

According to some reports, Hassabis wanted out of Google, but was convinced to stay over leadership concerns about the public reaction (how the maket would react). I wouldn't be surprised if this were the case. I think it's been pretty obvious that Demis wants to spend more time at Isomorphic Labs, the Chief Scientist/Chair role always seemed more like something that would allow him to leave in a few years imo

I'm curious how this plays out over the next few years. I could see Isomorphic Labs eventually becoming a more independent company, maybe spinout from Alphabet or potentially an IPO.

​

Gemini's take...

​Accelerationists and Luddites literally cannot coexist in the same society long-term

​Hear me out on this. We like to think of political and philosophical movements as living on a big, messy spectrum where everyone can eventually "agree to disagree." But when it comes to Accelerationism (pushing technological growth as fast as humanly possible) and Ludditism (slowing down or dismantling tech to protect human safety and culture), coexistence isn't just difficult—it’s structurally impossible.

​Here is why they are on an inevitable collision course:

​Network effects aren't optional: Accelerationism relies on total integration—massive data centers, autonomous energy grids, real-time AI networks, and continuous automation. You can't run a hyper-automated, frictionless society when a sizable chunk of the population is actively trying to opt out of the grid, sabotage infrastructure, or legally block deployment.

​The "opt-out" illusion: Luddites often just want local autonomy—the right to live tech-free or low-tech. But true accelerationism is inherently expansive. Once AI, biotech, or automation hits a critical threshold, its ripple effects (labor market shifts, resource demands, algorithmic governance) force everyone to adapt. There’s no quiet corner of the world left untouched when the baseline environment moves out from under you.

​Incompatible views on survival: To an accelerationist, slowing down tech development is slow-motion suicide—it leaves us vulnerable to disease, climate crises, and stagnation. To a Luddite, speeding tech up is literally building the machine that destroys human agency. When both sides genuinely believe the other’s core philosophy leads directly to extinction, zero-sum conflict is baked in.

​Eventually, one vision has to dominate. You either build the future at breakneck speed, or you draw hard boundaries to preserve human-centric systems. You can't run both scripts on the same operating system.

​TL;DR: Accelerationism requires systemic momentum to work, while Ludditism requires systemic safeguards to survive. In the same society, one side’s baseline progress is the other side’s existential threat.

Agree or disagree?

​

Are Google safety pilled? Refusing to put out a frontier model? Something serious is going on with the entire organization, staff jumping ship ect

Apparently Gemini 4 is still months away likely to be launched in 2027? Wow, like why can't they make a sota coding model?

Google is no longer a frontier lab, who is responsible for this?