cofnas' suspension proceedings from U of Ghent (do read the full suspension letter here) generated a reaction from the eugenicists: an open letter; the signatories, among many other names, some even probably not white supremacists, include some of our favourites: j michael bailey, pinker, shermer and hossenfelder.
this post was submitted on 16 Aug 2026
23 points (96.0% liked)
TechTakes
2647 readers
37 users here now
Big brain tech dude got yet another clueless take over at HackerNews etc? Here's the place to vent. Orange site, VC foolishness, all welcome.
This is not debate club. Unless it’s amusing debate.
For actually-good tech, you want our NotAwfulTech community
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
Signatories include psychologist J. Michael Bailey, best known for promoting the idea that many people who say they are trans are just kinky (autogynephilia), and running a class demo where a woman was brought to climax with help of a homemade toy called a fucksaw. The demo got a lot of attention in the dying days of the sex-positive blogosphere.
yes, precisely. he's a fucking creep.
Also very disappointed to learn that Ian Pace, a pianist I admired, has been oneshotted by social media and gone down the racist transphobe 24 hour tweeting monster chute.
Oof.
We need a word for "my condolences for that cool person you liked becoming a milkshake duck"
I love it when Americans get to find out that being a big racist is actually illegal in most of Europe.
If anyone ever wondered why I am constantly angry about AI its shit like this...
I was looking at options for securing a few services hosted behind a caddy reverse proxy and found a project with the very serious and official sounding name 'caddy-security'. To get started I tried to find some proper documentation for it and immediately found this announcement. In future, instead of a proper documentation you will get a bunch of files in the repos .codex/skills directory. These, according to the developer, help 'both humans and AI agents work with the codebase'. I don't know how this is supposed to help me because the files aren't linked to each other and are anything but proper documentation, but I guess they want me to point a slop agent at them and have it generate some security configuration for me.
I have heard about caddy a couple times now from people seemingly new to hosting.
Can I ask why it's so popular when Apache httpd still works fine and has reasonable governance?
Apache is terrible as an SSL terminator IME
Well, I wouldn't call myself new to hosting, I used nginx before but switched because Caddy makes configuring HTTPS for my reverse proxy very convenient. I use it with this module which handles the ACME DNS challenge for creating and updating letsencrypt certificates for my internal domains.
Because passing off basic security configuration to a system that basically ensures that even if it is without major errors it's basically impossible to understand and follow is definitely not a bad idea, especially if you're going to try and operate this for more than a couple of weeks or in on infrastructure that isn't perfectly isolated and specific to this app.
William MacAskill is embarrassed that he was buddies with SBF. But back in 2014 he was open that he brainstormed names for his movement with "the Leverage folks" and Geoff Anders. He also mentioned that "we hadn’t planned ‘effective altruism’ to take off in the way that it did" which is consistent with his later statements that he was always about the Longtermism.
The same blog archive from 2014 has recent posts on "Strategic considerations about different speeds of AI takeoff" and "an email conversation with (GiveWell founder) Holden Karnofsky, Eliezer Yudkowsky, and Luke Muehlhauser about future-oriented effective altruism" if you need to rub anyone's nose in it.
Sneerable names include Toby Ord ("negative utilitarianism is bad! Oops, now there is a line of negative utilitarians in dress shirts outside my door"), Nicholas Beckstead ("saving a life in a rich country is substantially more important than saving a life in a poor country, other things being equal"), and Peter Singer ("When the death of a disabled infant will lead to the birth of another infant with better prospects of a happy life, the total amount of happiness will be greater if the disabled infant is killed").
Edit: Nick Bostrom is the academic EA who said "I hate Ni****s", Toby Ord is the academic EA who gets followed around by negative utilitarians who want to debate him Edit: added Beckstead
Reason: I was talking to an EA on Reddit who does not want to believe that the eugenics and the skull calipers were in the movement from the beginning.
Large amounts of the LW commentariat cannot get their heads around how students JUST. DON'T. GET. AI.
https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/ySXuvJcqRindQwAk7/how-my-students-think-about-ai
They are extremely surprised by:
Perspective #1: There has not been rapid AI progress. My students do not have any intuitive sense that there has been rapid AI progress in recent years or really have much of a framework for thinking about that issue... With the exception of image/video generation, GPT-4 could do most of what they were looking for from a chatbot. Three years is a long time in their world, and their sense is that chatbots have been a mature technology over roughly that amount of time. They are an imperfect technology — students are well-aware of hallucinations — have been one, and will continue to be one... Historical context I gave them made this worse. The basic sentiment here was “AI was superhuman at chess a decade before we were born, and this is all they’ve done with it since?”...
Perspective #2: Impressive progress or not, AI is going to wreck their lives, the economy, and the social contract.... Corporate leaders are always looking to get rid of workers, even if it is irrational to do so. Various motivations were posited here (hatred of the working class, FOMO, a preference for technology, machines can’t go on strike, etc.) but many of them think that a CEO would ultimately choose to pay twice as much to get AI to do a task half as well... AI will do substandard work that makes products and experiences worse but is capable of just barely scraping past the bar of minimal functionality (many of them independently brought up constantly malfunctioning self check out machines). This will be rapidly rolled out, enshittifying most things.
Perspective #4: Catastrophic/existential risk arguments are sci-fi distractors from the urgent social/economic/political problems associated with AI. My students have a fairly strongly held view that “rogue” AI does not represent a real threat... They also mostly think that, if one does believe that AI is existentially risky, then the strategic interaction is not prisoner’s dilemma or even chicken but rather just a game theoretically boring setup where you die if you defect. Mash these together, and you end up with the view that expressed concerns about existential risk in the AI industry can’t be sincere... Students (both independently in written work and then later in group discussion) hypothesized that this might be a deliberate rhetorical choice to distract from present or immediately foreseeable harms from AI by directing attention towards a sexier but entirely hypothetical scenario.... they see discussion of “rogue” AI as an attempt by the companies to divert blame (and perhaps legal liability) away from themselves as if Ford made a car with faulty brakes and then tried to blame this on “rogue cars.”
Perspective #7: The Hugging Face Incident (summer students only) I described the Hugging Face incident to students in my summer course. None of them had heard of it beforehand. Their basic reaction can best be summarized as “OpenAI told a model to do some hacking and then it did some hacking. And?” None of them understood this as representing any kind of meaningful misalignment, nor anything particularly interesting.
Perspective #8: This is definitely a bubble and it’s about to pop. No one had heard about Hugging Face, but a third or so of the summer students had heard about the Situational Awareness meltdown and several brought up Michael Burry. There was near universal consensus that we are in a bubble, it’s about to pop, and everyone will look very silly.
The kids are alright!
My general approach telegraphs a receptiveness to “sober” forms of argument, an interest in counterintuitive strategic thinking, a distaste for wild speculation, an aversion to nakedly ideological perspectives, and a sense that the past is important for understanding the future. My students probably make some effort (implicit or explicit) to speak in ways that respond to this.
I'm going to leave this part of the author's self-description here and resist the urge to comment on it.
Perspective #6: AI will not go rogue because AI does not have, and is likely incapable of having, desires.
This one I found interesting largely because it suggests an inability on the writer's part to really understand point 4, despite featuring one of the better sneers on the subject ("as if Ford made a car with faulty brakes and then tried to blame this on 'rogue cars.'"). Maybe I'm overstating something here, but the way I see it the difference between the rogue AI and faulty AI scenarios aren't really in the distinct events of the scenario. Faulty AI could absolutely do as much damage as "rogue" AI if it was plugged into all the systems that would be necessary to, say, liquidate humanity and pull the iron from their blood. The difference is entirely in framing and responsibility. We should ask questions now about how these systems are used, what their limitations are, and how we deal with that. Instead, the Rogue AI people presuppose that we ignore all of those questions and opportunities to mitigate harm that these faulty systems can do and skip straight to the part where they have universal and immediate power over everything, and then use the idea that the AI went rogue and has agency to avoid how obviously bad of a decision this would be. The fact that this is also the part where the AI companies make a fucktillion dollars and finally show them, show them all, muhuhahaha is, I'm sure, irrelevant to their sober analysis.
the Rogue AI people presuppose that we ignore all of those questions and opportunities to mitigate harm that these faulty systems can do and skip straight to the part where they have universal and immediate power over everything
A corollary to that: the rationalists and those downstream assume that AI, as a technological category, will necessarily be more intelligent and capable than its users. Therefore they are willing (and arguably even enthusiastic!) to uncritically accept badly designed, opaque, and barely-functional software from whoever labels it AI. Learned helplessness in action. They claim to be experts at the highest level, but they're not even really able to get over the starting line of criticism.
This gives me very good vibes. The kids are all right. Maybe not economically, probably not, but in spirit at least.
https://www.publishersweekly.com/pw/by-topic/industry-news/religion/article/101070-study-finds-63-of-religion-books-on-amazon-likely-ai-written.html h/t naked capitalism
Over the first six months of 2026, the company scanned the three elements of books available on Amazon: summaries, author bios, and in-book samples, with the samples serving as the study’s primary metric. Any text with a score of 50 or above was classified “Likely AI.” (The study’s authors note that detection indicates a book was likely written with AI, but doesn’t prove authorship.)
Originality.ai found that AI is most prolific among the subgenres of witchcraft (in which 78% were “Likely AI”), Hinduism (76%) and Taoism (74%), and least used in the subgenres of Satanism (22%), atheism (40%) and Mormonism (42%). The authors note that the sample sizes for the last three categories are smaller than the first three; they also offered up a theory about why Eastern religion books are likely AI-generated: “Our hypothesis is that non-native English speakers are likely using AI to enter the English-speaking market.”
"Satanists least tainted by AI, says AI detection AI". it WOULD say that. /s
on an unrelated note on the same topic, I read the ebook by Jesus Freak Computer Geek blogger that argues that LLMs are actually channeling nephilim / demons (hence the six fingers in dalle) and that they have used the Mandela effect to corrupt the KJV and also herald the antichrist. Him and Thiel should, like, call in to coast to coast am where these things can be properly debated.
Him and Thiel should, like, call in to coast to coast am where these things can be properly debated.
Art Bell was not a non-problematic person, but if he were still alive, at least this era would have an appropriate narrator. His replacement George Noory essentially turned the show into a shill-a-thon for anyone with woo bullshit to sell (quite literally, any guest I've heard since Bell died was clearly there to pull the listener into their sales funnel).
Which makes me a bit surprised that I haven't heard about any of our friends being booked!
over on the corporate hell site, Timnit has found a link
Well guys, I KNEW that we were going to connect the network hounding Arday to the TESCREAL bozos somehow. I could smell it.
This is a "paper" by the professor of "ethics" who hired the vile Cofnas at Ghent University. This is the kind of "research" they do.
✴️ Reminder the L in TESCREAL stands for "longtermism". Read more at https://lnkd.in/ge2VFMe4. These are the eugenicists who pushed generative AI down your throats, including Ben Goertzel who told Epstein that when he creates a super brain, there won't be the kind of women who accused Epstein of rape.
✴️ "Dysgenic pressures" is the opposite "eugenic pressures." In this so-called paper, they're talking about undesirables like Black people reproducing too much.
cofnas got suspended for being a racist dipshit
times high education got wind of it all over nine months before cofnas did, but didn't publish because of SLAPP possibility https://www.timeshighereducation.com/opinion/i-was-reported-police-over-arday-case-i-was-just-doing-my-job https://www.timeshighereducation.com/opinion/jason-arday-many-things-can-be-possible-same-time i read it as multifaceted shitshow
So the argument is that the hypothetical future generations that longtermists value might be too dumb to care about because of ~~black and brown people reproducing~~ ~~miscegenation~~ "dysgenic pressures". But if we assume, as they appear to, that longtermists should be taken seriously rather than pointed at and mocked, then the math involved would basically necessitate that "certain" people alive today should also merit effectively zero moral consideration. Something tells me that they get real conceptual real fast and start avoiding the shut up and multiply people hard.
The paper by de Vries cites all our favourite race cranks: Bo Winegard, Aporia Magazine, Michael Woodley of Menie, Helmuth Nyborg, Diana Fleischman, E.O.W. Kirkegaard, Steven Pinker (not out AFAIK but he keeps promoting Nazis), G. Meisenberg of Mankind Quarterly, Richard Lynn, Charles Murray https://doi.org/10.1016/j.futures.2024.103417
Presented without comment 
::: spoiler spoiler
A street ad for a breakfast burrito with an AI-generated image of a disgusting burrito that is full of maggots
I heard the image is likely to be totally ai generated and might not be real
I am now convinced it is indeed fake. Shame on me, posting slop
It got me as well before.
Doesnt help that i saw overgreebled food advertisements like that irl. I did 'boycot' that food place.
@Soyweiser Got me, too. Highlights the ubiquity of LLM slop in viral clickbait these days. This place is not a place of honor ... no highly esteemed deed is commemorated here ... nothing valued is here (&c.)
Yeah actually, the sign border is weird, building in backround makes no sense, building on the right has a couple of weird features, trees are very indistinct, pavement on left abruptly changes paving pattern just before the sign, pavement-road on right of sign.
Automated company or attempt at viral marketing?
The protein craze has gone too far
OT: I just turned 26. I'm taking a trip to a local steakhouse to celebrate.
Happy birthday, my friend! Glad to hear that the steakhouse delivered.
load more comments
(1 replies)
This policy seeks to ensure that our courses focus on requisite cognitive skills by default. It provides students with the opportunity to develop the skills they need to conceptualize, outline, draft, revise, and edit their work by forbidding the use of AI for these purposes in connection with work submitted for credit. It also forbids using AI to translate work for credit, thus providing students with the opportunity to develop and exercise their own fluency with legal English. [...] The use of AI is prohibited for aid in conceptualizing, outlining, drafting, revising, translating, or editing any work submitted for credit. AI use is prohibited for any use for any purpose in any exam situation. Students may not upload course materials—including assignments, readings, slides, class recordings, or other class content—into generative AI systems.
I wonder how long until some big AI company has a massive leak of identifiable-user chat logs with god knows what confidential stuff on it, since they HAVE to have all this in plaintext
that already kinda happened (for a certain groups of users) with the public share links thing, but my money is on a corporate self-own a la the old AOL search data set.
man good for them. meanwhile down south we keep throwing good money after bad while also doing layoffs.
view more: next ›