Machine Learning Street Talk (MLST)

When AI Decides You're a Threat — Brad Carson

Brad Carson was the Army's General Counsel, served two terms in Congress and was Acting Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness. He now heads Americans for Responsible Innovation, the AI-policy advocacy group he co-founded. Keith Duggar spends roughly eighty minutes pushing back.SPONSOR:---Cyber Fund built the Monastery to help founders ship products that were impossible a year ago. Applications for Batch 1 are now open.Apply now: https://cyber.fund---Carson's whole case rests on one line: the genie is not out of the bottle. We have pulled dangerous tech back before. Asilomar halted recombinant DNA in 1975, and the West still controls the chips AI runs on. Calling it unstoppable, he says, is the most dangerous idea in the room.Then Keith drags him somewhere darker. A Palantir heat map scores you 0.73 on whether you are a combatant, and a strike follows. The model is wrong some accepted share of the time, and when it is, nobody answers for it. You cannot court-martial a model, and not even the interpretability researchers can say why it picked you.—Note: after recording, we learned that Americans for Responsible Innovation is backed by EA-aligned philanthropy (not sponsored)---TIMESTAMPS:00:00:00 From the Pentagon to AI governance00:04:52 Regulatory capture vs Silicon Valley networks00:07:56 Transparency and the Claude tier changes00:09:40 Tort liability when AI tools cause harm00:13:40 AI is a product, not a person00:16:01 Children, suicide, and the suicide business00:19:59 Opaque neural nets and the law of war00:25:54 Probabilistic targeting and the death of accountability00:28:47 The arms race fallacy: Asilomar and restraint00:34:02 Talking to China: track 2 talks and chip leverage00:39:45 Air power never wins: capital for labour00:43:29 Anthropic vs the Department of War00:51:29 Concentration, open source, and brain drain01:00:18 DeepSeek, Chinese culture, and AI as diplomacy01:12:25 Upskilling Congress and why public trust matters---REFERENCES:organization:[00:02:45] ICRC position on autonomous weaponshttps://www.icrc.org/en/law-and-policy/autonomous-weapons[00:05:22] Americans for Responsible Innovation (ARI)https://ari.us[00:07:20] Andreessen Horowitz (a16z)https://a16z.com/[01:16:05] Office of Technology Assessmenthttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Office_of_Technology_Assessmentother:[00:03:35] Beneficial AGI 2019 Conference (Future of Life Institute, Puerto Rico)https://futureoflife.org/event/beneficial-agi-2019/[00:18:30] Section 230 of the Communications Decency Acthttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_230[00:19:59] Lethal Autonomous Weapons (LAWS)https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lethal_autonomous_weapon[00:31:35] Strategic Arms Limitation Talks (SALT)https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strategic_Arms_Limitation_Talks[00:32:28] Asilomar Conference on Recombinant DNA (1975)https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asilomar_Conference_on_Recombinant_DNA[00:39:45] The New Iron Triangle (ARI policy byte)https://ari.us/policy-bytes/the-new-iron-triangle/[00:48:05] Defense Production Acthttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defense_Production_Actperson:[00:03:35] Anthony Aguirrehttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthony_Aguirre[00:06:48] Dean Ball — Hyperdimensionalhttps://www.hyperdimensional.co/[00:23:13] Neel Nanda — mechanistic interpretabilityhttps://www.neelnanda.io/[00:36:02] Jack Clark (Anthropic) on Conversations with Tylerhttps://conversationswithtyler.com/episodes/jack-clark/[00:39:15] Robert Trager — Centre for the Governance of AIhttps://www.governance.ai/team/robert-trager[00:41:55] Giulio Douhethttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Giulio_Douhet[01:15:05] Don Beyer (US Congress)https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Don_Beyertool:[00:22:19] Phalanx CIWShttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phalanx_CIWS---ReScript:https://app.rescript.info/public/share/9405ff35c0215b7cdae6402d41284171https://app.rescript.info/api/public/sessions/0a6c081b8e5fe413/pdf

Transcribe →

Intelligence is collective, not artificial — Prof. Michael I. Jordan (UC Berkeley / Inria)

2w ago01:17:09Tap to summarize

Michael I. Jordan, described by Science magazine as the most influential computer scientist alive, has never thought of himself as an AI researcher. In this conversation he explains why that distinction matters.SPONSOR:---Cyber Fund built the Monastery to help founders ship products that were impossible a year ago. Applications for Batch 1 are now open.Apply now: https://cyber.fund---Jordan trained as a statistician and cognitive scientist, and his career has been spent building machine learning systems that work in the real world: supply chains, commerce, healthcare, and large economic systems. When the field rebranded itself as AI and then AGI, he did not follow. Instead he argues that the framing is wrong. AI is better understood as a collective economic system than as a race to build a disembodied superintelligence.We talk about why AGI is mostly a PR term, what machine learning achieved before the LLM hype cycle, and why the assistant-on-your-shoulder vision may be less compelling than it sounds. Jordan explains why explanations need to be actionable, not merely mechanistic; why AlphaFold's missing error bars matter; how prediction-powered inference changes the picture; and why drug discovery is an incentive-design problem rather than a pure pattern-matching problem.ERRATA: Science magazine ranked him the most influential computer scientist, not Nature---TIMESTAMPS:00:00:00 Cold open: A demoralizing message to young builders00:02:04 CyberFund sponsor read00:02:50 From symbolic AI to machine learning systems00:05:42 Why AGI is mostly a PR term00:08:48 A collectivist, economic perspective on AI00:11:33 Why LLMs need system design, not hype00:14:50 Predictability beats faux understanding00:17:55 AlphaFold, bias, and prediction-powered inference00:21:48 Stop anthropomorphizing intelligence00:27:44 Drug discovery as an incentive problem00:32:29 The three-layer data market00:38:07 Social knowledge, markets, and culture00:45:39 Creator economics beyond Spotify00:48:30 How science-fiction AI narratives mislead young builders00:51:45 AI should improve humans, not replace them00:56:42 Safety is a property of the whole system00:58:12 Silicon Valley gurus and the cream off the top01:00:47 Game theory, mechanism design, and contracts01:04:39 Conformal prediction, e-values, and anytime inference01:08:11 A new liberal arts triangle for the AI era01:11:30 The Bayesian duck and markets as uncertainty reductionReScript (transcript, PDF, refs etc) - https://app.rescript.info/public/share/fb68f94af29d3745c6cf6125e01328b5---REFERENCES:person:[00:02:50] Michael I. Jordan (homepage)https://people.eecs.berkeley.edu/~jordan/paper:[00:06:01] A Collectivist, Economic Perspective on AIhttps://arxiv.org/abs/2507.06268[00:18:09] AlphaFoldhttps://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-021-03819-2[00:20:36] Prediction-Powered Inferencehttps://arxiv.org/abs/2301.09633[00:33:47] On Three-Layer Data Marketshttps://arxiv.org/abs/2402.09697[01:04:39] Conformal Prediction with Conditional Guaranteeshttps://arxiv.org/abs/2107.07511[01:04:51] A Tutorial on Conformal Predictionhttps://www.jmlr.org/papers/v9/shafer08a.html[01:06:00] E-Values Expand the Scope of Conformal Predictionhttps://arxiv.org/abs/2503.13050[01:08:23] Computational Thinkinghttps://www.cs.cmu.edu/~CompThink/papers/Wing06.pdfother:[00:28:20] How Should the FDA Test?https://rdi.berkeley.edu/events/sbc-assets/pdfs/Summit%20session%20speaker%20slides%20submission%20form-s1-5%20%28File%20responses%29/Slides%20in%20PDF%20%28Please%20name%20the%20submitted%20file%20as%20_firstname_-_lastname_-slides.pdf%29.%20%28File%20responses%29/27-Michael%20Jordan-Session%20V.pdf#page=15[00:28:40] Michael I. Jordan Session V Slides<truncated, see ReScript link or YT VD>

Transcribe →

The AI Models Smart Enough to Know They're Cheating — Beth Barnes & David Rein [METR]

4w ago01:53:26Tap to summarize

Beth Barnes and David Rein on the one graph that ate the AI timelines discourse, and why the two people who built it are the most careful about how you read it.**SPONSOR**Prolific - Quality data. From real people. For faster breakthroughs.https://www.prolific.com/?utm_source=mlstInterview: https://youtu.be/cnxZZTl1tkk---Beth Barnes and David Rein from METR on the one graph that ate the AI timelines discourse, and why the people who built it are the most careful about how it gets read.Beth founded METR after leaving OpenAI alignment. David is first author on GPQA and co-author on HCAST and the METR Time Horizons paper. Together they built the measurement Daniel Kokotajlo called the single most important piece of evidence on AI timelines: the log-linear line of "how long a task a frontier model can complete at 50% reliability" vs release date.The conversation opens on reward hacking. Current models can articulate in chat why a behaviour is undesired and then execute it anyway as agents. From there: construct validity, Melanie Mitchell's four-problem taxonomy, and the ARC-AGI 1-to-2 collapse as a worked example of adversarially-selected benchmarks regressing once labs target them. Beth's counter: METR deliberately does not adversarially select. David's: models do not have to do the right thing for the right reasons.Methodology, then specification — David's compiler analogy, Beth on four-month tasks as expensive to evaluate rather than unspecifiable. Then the SWE-bench reality check, the METR finding that half of passing PRs would not be merged, and Beth's horses-versus-bank-tellers analogy for the labour market.The close: monitorability, the coin-spinning boat, two-year recursive self-improvement, and Beth's line that "overhyped now" and "big deal later" are not correlated claims.---TIMESTAMPS:00:00:00 Intro00:02:06 Sponsor break: Prolific human-feedback infrastructure00:02:33 Welcome and the scalable oversight motivation00:06:02 Construct validity, benchmark pathologies and the Chollet worry00:15:45 Time Horizons: human time, HCAST tasks and the 50% logistic00:24:50 Is human difficulty really one variable?00:33:05 Agent harness evolution and the inference-compute dividend00:40:00 Scaffolding bells, token budgets and the credit-assignment problem00:44:15 Look at the damn graph: regularisation bug and reliability nuance00:50:00 Why 50%? Reliability, reward hacking and pizza-party transcripts00:55:20 Extrapolation risk and straight lines on graphs00:59:25 Software engineering as a specification acquisition problem01:07:40 Compilers also made ugly code: vibe-coding quality and Claude on METR Slack01:15:15 Strongest defensible claim, Carlini's compiler swarm and AI 202701:23:45 SWE-bench merge rates, the bank-teller analogy and horses01:31:45 Scheming, alignment faking and the mentalistic vocabulary problem01:40:45 Reward hacking, monitorability and chain-of-thought faithfulness01:45:25 Recursive self-improvement, knowledge vs intelligence and closingReScript: https://app.rescript.info/public/share/de3bb40cc02ee39fdf36e2c60366eb4d(PDF, refs, transcript etc)

Transcribe →

When AI Discovers The Next Transformer - Robert Lange (Sakana)

Mar 1301:18:06Tap to summarize

Robert Lange, founding researcher at Sakana AI, joins Tim to discuss *Shinka Evolve* — a framework that combines LLMs with evolutionary algorithms to do open-ended program search. The core claim: systems like AlphaEvolve can optimize solutions to fixed problems, but real scientific progress requires co-evolving the problems themselves.GTC is coming, the premier AI conference, great opportunity to learn about AI. NVIDIA and partners will showcase breakthroughs in physical AI, AI factories, agentic AI, and inference, exploring the next wave of AI innovation for developers and researchers. Register for virtual GTC for free, using my link and win NVIDIA DGX Spark (https://nvda.ws/4qQ0LMg)• Why AlphaEvolve gets stuck — it needs a human to hand it the right problem. Shinka tries to invent new problems automatically, drawing on ideas from POET, PowerPlay, and MAP-Elites quality-diversity search.• The *architecture* of Shinka: an archive of programs organized as islands, LLMs used as mutation operators, and a UCB bandit that adaptively selects between frontier models (GPT-5, Sonnet 4.5, Gemini) mid-run. The credit-assignment problem across models turns out to be genuinely hard.• Concrete results — state-of-the-art circle packing with dramatically fewer evaluations, second place in an AtCoder competitive programming challenge, evolved load-balancing loss functions for mixture-of-experts models, and agent scaffolds for AIME math benchmarks.• Are these systems actually thinking outside the box, or are they parasitic on their starting conditions? When LLMs run autonomously, "nothing interesting happens." Robert pushes back with the stepping-stone argument — evolution doesn't need to extrapolate, just recombine usefully.• The AI Scientist question: can automated research pipelines produce real science, or just workshop-level slop that passes surface-level review? Robert is honest that the current version is more co-pilot than autonomous researcher.• Where this lands in 5-20 years — Robert's prediction that scientific research will be fundamentally transformed, and Tim's thought experiment about alien mathematical artifacts that no human could have conceived.Robert Lange: https://roberttlange.com/---TIMESTAMPS:00:00:00 Introduction: Robert Lange, Sakana AI and Shinka Evolve00:04:15 AlphaEvolve's Blind Spot: Co-Evolving Problems with Solutions00:09:05 Unknown Unknowns, POET, and Auto-Curricula for AI Science00:14:20 MAP-Elites and Quality-Diversity: Shinka's Evolutionary Architecture00:28:00 UCB Bandits, Mutations and the Vibe Research Vision00:40:00 Scaling Shinka: Meta-Evolution, Democratisation and the Three-Axis Model00:47:10 Applications, ARC-AGI and the Future of Work00:57:00 The AI Scientist and the Human Co-Pilot: Who Steers the Search?01:06:00 AI Scientist v2, Slop Critique and the Future of Scientific Publishing---REFERENCES:paper:[00:03:30] ShinkaEvolve: Towards Open-Ended And Sample-Efficient Program Evolutionhttps://arxiv.org/abs/2509.19349[00:04:15] AlphaEvolve: A Coding Agent for Scientific and Algorithmic Discoveryhttps://arxiv.org/abs/2506.13131[00:06:30] Darwin Godel Machine: Open-Ended Evolution of Self-Improving Agentshttps://arxiv.org/abs/2505.22954[00:09:05] Paired Open-Ended Trailblazer (POET)https://arxiv.org/abs/1901.01753[00:10:00] PowerPlay: Training an Increasingly General Problem Solver by Continually Searching for the Simplest Still Unsolvable Problemhttps://arxiv.org/abs/1112.5309[00:10:40] Automated Capability Discovery via Foundation Model Self-Explorationhttps://arxiv.org/abs/2502.07577[00:15:30] Illuminating Search Spaces by Mapping Elites (MAP-Elites)https://arxiv.org/abs/1504.04909[00:47:10] Automated Design of Agentic Systems (ADAS)https://arxiv.org/abs/2408.08435<trunc, see ReScript/YT>PDF : https://app.rescript.info/api/sessions/b8a9dcf60623657c/pdf/downloadTranscript: https://app.rescript.info/public/share/SDOD_3oXOcli3zTqcAtR8eibT5U3gam84oo4KRtI-Vk

Transcribe →

"Vibe Coding is a Slot Machine" - Jeremy Howard

Mar 301:26:39Tap to summarize

Dive into the realities of AI-assisted coding, the origins of modern fine-tuning, and the cognitive science behind machine learning with fast.ai founder Jeremy Howard. In this episode, we unpack why AI might be turning software engineering into a slot machine and how to maintain true technical intuition in the age of large language models.GTC is coming, the premier AI conference, great opportunity to learn about AI. NVIDIA and partners will showcase breakthroughs in physical AI, AI factories, agentic AI, and inference, exploring the next wave of AI innovation for developers and researchers. Register for virtual GTC for free, using my link and win NVIDIA DGX Spark (https://nvda.ws/4qQ0LMg)Jeremy Howard is a renowned data scientist, researcher, entrepreneur, and educator. As the co-founder of fast.ai, former President of Kaggle, and the creator of ULMFiT, Jeremy has spent decades democratizing deep learning. His pioneering work laid the foundation for modern transfer learning and the pre-training and fine-tuning paradigm that powers today's language models.Key Topics and Main Insights Discussed:- The Origins of ULMFiT and Fine-Tuning- The Vibe Coding Illusion and Software Engineering- Cognitive Science, Friction, and Learning- The Future of DevelopersRESCRIPT: https://app.rescript.info/public/share/BhX5zP3b0m63srLOQDKBTFTooSzEMh_ARwmDG_h_izkJeremy Howard:https://x.com/jeremyphowardhttps://www.answer.ai/---TIMESTAMPS (fixed):00:00:00 Introduction & GTC Sponsor00:04:30 ULMFiT & The Birth of Fine-Tuning00:12:00 Intuition & The Mechanics of Learning00:18:30 Abstraction Hierarchies & AI Creativity00:23:00 Claude Code & The Interpolation Illusion00:27:30 Coding vs. Software Engineering00:30:00 Cosplaying Intelligence: Dennett vs. Searle00:36:30 Automation, Radiology & Desirable Difficulty00:42:30 Organizational Knowledge & The Slope00:48:00 Vibe Coding as a Slot Machine00:54:00 The Erosion of Control in Software01:01:00 Interactive Programming & REPL Environments01:05:00 The Notebook Debate & Exploratory Science01:17:30 AI Existential Risk & Power Centralization01:24:20 Current Risks, Privacy & Enfeeblement---REFERENCES:Blog Post:[00:03:00] fast.ai Blog: Self-Supervised Learninghttps://www.fast.ai/posts/2020-01-13-self_supervised.html[00:13:30] DeepMind Blog: Gemini Deep Thinkhttps://deepmind.google/blog/accelerating-mathematical-and-scientific-discovery-with-gemini-deep-think/[00:19:30] Modular Blog: Claude C Compiler analysishttps://www.modular.com/blog/the-claude-c-compiler-what-it-reveals-about-the-future-of-software[00:19:45] Anthropic Engineering Blog: Building C Compilerhttps://www.anthropic.com/engineering/building-c-compiler[00:48:00] Cursor Blog: Scaling Agentshttps://cursor.com/blog/scaling-agents[01:05:15] fast.ai Blog: NB Dev Merged Driverhttps://www.fast.ai/posts/2022-08-25-jupyter-git.html[01:17:30] Jeremy Howard: Response to AI Risk Letterhttps://www.normaltech.ai/p/is-avoiding-extinction-from-ai-reallyBook:[00:08:30] M. Chirimuuta: The Brain Abstractedhttps://mitpress.mit.edu/9780262548045/the-brain-abstracted/[00:30:00] Daniel Dennett: Consciousness Explainedhttps://www.amazon.com/Consciousness-Explained-Daniel-C-Dennett/dp/0316180661[00:42:30] Cesar Hidalgo: Infinite Alphabet / Laws of Knowledgehttps://www.amazon.com/Infinite-Alphabet-Laws-Knowledge/dp/0241655676Archive Article:[00:13:45] MLST Archive: Why Creativity Cannot Be Interpolatedhttps://archive.mlst.ai/read/why-creativity-cannot-be-interpolatedResearch Study:[00:24:30] METR Study: AI OS Developmenthttps://metr.org/blog/2025-07-10-early-2025-ai-experienced-os-dev-study/Paper:[00:24:45] Fred Brooks: No Silver Bullethttps://www.cs.unc.edu/techreports/86-020.pdf[00:30:15] John Searle: Minds, Brains, and Programshttps://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/behavioral-and-brain-sciences/article/minds-brains-and-programs/DC644B47A4299C637C89772FACC2706A

Transcribe →

Evolution "Doesn't Need" Mutation - Blaise Agüera y Arcas

Feb 1600:55:48Tap to summarize

What if life itself is just a really sophisticated computer program that wrote itself into existence?Blaise Agüera y Arcas presenting at ALife 2025 — the most technically detailed public walkthrough of the ideas in his *What is Life?* and *What is Intelligence?* books that we've come across.He covers the BFF experiments (self-replicating programs emerging spontaneously from random noise), the mathematical framework connecting Lotka-Volterra population dynamics with Smoluchowski coagulation, eigenvalue analysis of cooperation matrices, and his central claim that symbiogenesis — not mutation — is the primary engine of evolutionary novelty.The experimental results are genuinely striking: complex self-replicating code arising from random byte strings with zero mutation, a sharp phase transition that looks like gelation, and a proof that blocking deep symbiogenetic ancestry trees prevents the transition entirely.A few things worth flagging for critical viewers:— The substrate is more carefully engineered than the framing sometimes suggests. The choice of language, tape length, interaction protocol, and step limits all shape what emerges. Their own SUBLEQ counterexample (where self-replicators *don't* arise despite being theoretically possible) highlights that these design choices matter substantially — and a general theory of which substrates support this transition is still missing.— The leap from "self-replicating programs on fixed-length tapes" to "life was computational and intelligent from the start" involves significant philosophical extrapolation beyond what the experiments directly demonstrate.— The Bedau et al. (2000) open problems paper he references at the start actually sets a higher bar for Challenge 3.2 than BFF currently meets: it asks that "the internal organization of these 'organisms' and the boundaries separating them from their environment arise and be sustained through the activities of lower-level primitives" — whereas BFF's tape boundaries are fixed by design, not emergent.---TIMESTAMPS:00:00:00 Introduction: From Noise to Programs & ALife History00:03:15 Defining Life: Function as the "Spirit"00:05:45 Von Neumann's Insight: Life is Embodied Computation00:09:15 Physics of Computation: Irreversibility & Fallacies00:15:00 The BFF Experiment: Spontaneous Generation of Code00:23:45 The Mystery: Complexity Growth Without Mutation00:27:00 Symbiogenesis: The Engine of Novelty00:33:15 Mathematical Proof: Blocking Symbiosis Stops Life00:40:15 Evolutionary Implications: It's Symbiogenesis All The Way Down00:44:30 Intelligence as Modeling Others00:46:49 Q&A: Levels of Abstraction & Definitions---REFERENCES:Paper:[00:01:16] Open Problems in Artificial Lifehttps://direct.mit.edu/artl/article/6/4/363/2354/Open-Problems-in-Artificial-Life[00:09:30] When does a physical system compute?https://arxiv.org/abs/1309.7979[00:15:00] Computational Lifehttps://arxiv.org/abs/2406.19108[00:27:30] On the Origin of Mitosing Cellshttps://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/11541392/[00:42:00] The Major Evolutionary Transitionshttps://www.nature.com/articles/374227a0[00:44:00] The ARC genehttps://www.nih.gov/news-events/news-releases/memory-gene-goes-viralPerson:[00:05:45] Alan Turinghttps://plato.stanford.edu/entries/turing/[00:07:30] John von Neumannhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_von_Neumann[00:11:15] Hector Zenilhttps://hectorzenil.net/[00:12:00] Robert Sapolskyhttps://profiles.stanford.edu/robert-sapolsky---LINKS:RESCRIPT: https://app.rescript.info/public/share/ff7gb6HpezOR3DF-gr9-rCoMFzzEgUjLQK6voV5XVWY

Transcribe →

VAEs Are Energy-Based Models? [Dr. Jeff Beck]

Jan 2500:46:56Tap to summarize

What makes something truly *intelligent?* Is a rock an agent? Could a perfect simulation of your brain actually *be* you? In this fascinating conversation, Dr. Jeff Beck takes us on a journey through the philosophical and technical foundations of agency, intelligence, and the future of AI.Jeff doesn't hold back on the big questions. He argues that from a purely mathematical perspective, there's no structural difference between an agent and a rock – both execute policies that map inputs to outputs. The real distinction lies in *sophistication* – how complex are the internal computations? Does the system engage in planning and counterfactual reasoning, or is it just a lookup table that happens to give the right answers?*Key topics explored in this conversation:**The Black Box Problem of Agency* – How can we tell if something is truly planning versus just executing a pre-computed response? Jeff explains why this question is nearly impossible to answer from the outside, and why the best we can do is ask which model gives us the simplest explanation.*Energy-Based Models Explained* – A masterclass on how EBMs differ from standard neural networks. The key insight: traditional networks only optimize weights, while energy-based models optimize *both* weights and internal states – a subtle but profound distinction that connects to Bayesian inference.*Why Your Brain Might Have Evolved from Your Nose* – One of the most surprising moments in the conversation. Jeff proposes that the complex, non-smooth nature of olfactory space may have driven the evolution of our associative cortex and planning abilities.*The JEPA Revolution* – A deep dive into Yann LeCun's Joint Embedding Prediction Architecture and why learning in latent space (rather than predicting every pixel) might be the key to more robust AI representations.*AI Safety Without Skynet Fears* – Jeff takes a refreshingly grounded stance on AI risk. He's less worried about rogue superintelligences and more concerned about humans becoming "reward function selectors" – couch potatoes who just approve or reject AI outputs. His proposed solution? Use inverse reinforcement learning to derive AI goals from observed human behavior, then make *small* perturbations rather than naive commands like "end world hunger."Whether you're interested in the philosophy of mind, the technical details of modern machine learning, or just want to understand what makes intelligence *tick,* this conversation delivers insights you won't find anywhere else.---TIMESTAMPS:00:00:00 Geometric Deep Learning & Physical Symmetries00:00:56 Defining Agency: From Rocks to Planning00:05:25 The Black Box Problem & Counterfactuals00:08:45 Simulated Agency vs. Physical Reality00:12:55 Energy-Based Models & Test-Time Training00:17:30 Bayesian Inference & Free Energy00:20:07 JEPA, Latent Space, & Non-Contrastive Learning00:27:07 Evolution of Intelligence & Modular Brains00:34:00 Scientific Discovery & Automated Experimentation00:38:04 AI Safety, Enfeeblement & The Future of Work---REFERENCES:Concept:[00:00:58] Free Energy Principle (FEP)https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_energy_principle[00:06:00] Monte Carlo Tree Searchhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monte_Carlo_tree_searchBook:[00:09:00] The Intentional Stancehttps://mitpress.mit.edu/9780262540537/the-intentional-stance/Paper:[00:13:00] A Tutorial on Energy-Based Learning (LeCun 2006)http://yann.lecun.com/exdb/publis/pdf/lecun-06.pdf[00:15:00] Auto-Encoding Variational Bayes (VAE)https://arxiv.org/abs/1312.6114[00:20:15] JEPA (Joint Embedding Prediction Architecture)https://openreview.net/forum?id=BZ5a1r-kVsf[00:22:30] The Wake-Sleep Algorithmhttps://www.cs.toronto.edu/~hinton/absps/ws.pdf<trunc, see rescript>---RESCRIPT:https://app.rescript.info/public/share/DJlSbJ_Qx080q315tWaqMWn3PixCQsOcM4Kf1IW9_EoPDF:https://app.rescript.info/api/public/sessions/0efec296b9b6e905/pdf

Transcribe →

Abstraction & Idealization: AI's Plato Problem [Mazviita Chirimuuta]

Jan 2300:53:37Tap to summarize

Professor Mazviita Chirimuuta joins us for a fascinating deep dive into the philosophy of neuroscience and what it really means to understand the mind.*What can neuroscience actually tell us about how the mind works?* In this thought-provoking conversation, we explore the hidden assumptions behind computational theories of the brain, the limits of scientific abstraction, and why the question of machine consciousness might be more complicated than AI researchers assume.Mazviita, author of *The Brain Abstracted,* brings a unique perspective shaped by her background in both neuroscience research and philosophy. She challenges us to think critically about the metaphors we use to understand cognition — from the reflex theory of the late 19th century to today's dominant view of the brain as a computer.*Key topics explored:**The problem of oversimplification* — Why scientific models necessarily leave things out, and how this can sometimes lead entire fields astray. The cautionary tale of reflex theory shows how elegant explanations can blind us to biological complexity.*Is the brain really a computer?* — Mazviita unpacks the philosophical assumptions behind computational neuroscience and asks: if we can model anything computationally, what makes brains special? The answer might challenge everything you thought you knew about AI.*Haptic realism* — A fresh way of thinking about scientific knowledge that emphasizes interaction over passive observation. Knowledge isn't about reading the "source code of the universe" — it's something we actively construct through engagement with the world.*Why embodiment matters for understanding* — Can a disembodied language model truly understand? Mazviita makes a compelling case that human cognition is deeply entangled with our sensory-motor engagement and biological existence in ways that can't simply be abstracted away.*Technology and human finitude* — Drawing on Heidegger, we discuss how the dream of transcending our physical limitations through technology might reflect a fundamental misunderstanding of what it means to be a knower.This conversation is essential viewing for anyone interested in AI, consciousness, philosophy of mind, or the future of cognitive science. Whether you're skeptical of strong AI claims or a true believer in machine consciousness, Mazviita's careful philosophical analysis will give you new tools for thinking through these profound questions.---TIMESTAMPS:00:00:00 The Problem of Generalizing Neuroscience00:02:51 Abstraction vs. Idealization: The "Kaleidoscope"00:05:39 Platonism in AI: Discovering or Inventing Patterns?00:09:42 When Simplification Fails: The Reflex Theory00:12:23 Behaviorism and the "Black Box" Trap00:14:20 Haptic Realism: Knowledge Through Interaction00:20:23 Is Nature Protean? The Myth of Converging Truth00:23:23 The Computational Theory of Mind: A Useful Fiction?00:27:25 Biological Constraints: Why Brains Aren't Just Neural Nets00:31:01 Agency, Distal Causes, and Dennett's Stances00:37:13 Searle's Challenge: Causal Powers and Understanding00:41:58 Heidegger's Warning & The Experiment on Children---REFERENCES:Book:[00:01:28] The Brain Abstractedhttps://mitpress.mit.edu/9780262548045/the-brain-abstracted/[00:11:05] The Integrated Action of the Nervous Systemhttps://www.amazon.sg/integrative-action-nervous-system/dp/9354179029[00:18:15] The Quest for Certainty (Dewey)https://www.amazon.com/Quest-Certainty-Relation-Knowledge-Lectures/dp/0399501916[00:19:45] Realism for Realistic People (Chang)https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/realism-for-realistic-people/ACC93A7F03B15AA4D6F3A466E3FC5AB7<truncated, see ReScript>---RESCRIPT:https://app.rescript.info/public/share/A6cZ1TY35p8ORMmYCWNBI0no9ChU3-Kx7dPXGJURvZ0PDF Transcript:https://app.rescript.info/api/public/sessions/0fb7767e066cf712/pdf

Transcribe →

Why Every Brain Metaphor in History Has Been Wrong [SPECIAL EDITION]

Jan 2300:42:04Tap to summarize

What if everything we think we know about the brain is just a really good metaphor that we forgot was a metaphor?This episode takes you on a journey through the history of scientific simplification, from a young Karl Friston watching wood lice in his garden to the bold claims that your mind is literally software running on biological hardware.We bring together some of the most brilliant minds we've interviewed — Professor Mazviita Chirimuuta, Francois Chollet, Joscha Bach, Professor Luciano Floridi, Professor Noam Chomsky, Nobel laureate John Jumper, and more — to wrestle with a deceptively simple question: *When scientists simplify reality to study it, what gets captured and what gets lost?**Key ideas explored:**The Spherical Cow Problem* — Science requires simplification. We're limited creatures trying to understand systems far more complex than our working memory can hold. But when does a useful model become a dangerous illusion?*The Kaleidoscope Hypothesis* — Francois Chollet's beautiful idea that beneath all the apparent chaos of reality lies simple, repeating patterns — like bits of colored glass in a kaleidoscope creating infinite complexity. Is this profound truth or Platonic wishful thinking?*Is Software Really Spirit?* — Joscha Bach makes the provocative claim that software is literally spirit, not metaphorically. We push back on this, asking whether the "sameness" we see across different computers running the same program exists in nature or only in our descriptions.*The Cultural Illusion of AGI* — Why does artificial general intelligence seem so inevitable to people in Silicon Valley? Professor Chirimuuta suggests we might be caught in a "cultural historical illusion" — our mechanistic assumptions about minds making AI seem like destiny when it might just be a bet.*Prediction vs. Understanding* — Nobel Prize winner John Jumper: AI can predict and control, but understanding requires a human in the loop. Throughout history, we've described the brain as hydraulic pumps, telegraph networks, telephone switchboards, and now computers. Each metaphor felt obviously true at the time. This episode asks: what will we think was naive about our current assumptions in fifty years?Featuring insights from *The Brain Abstracted* by Mazviita Chirimuuta — possibly the most influential book on how we think about thinking in 2025.---TIMESTAMPS:00:00:00 The Wood Louse & The Spherical Cow00:02:04 The Necessity of Abstraction00:04:42 Simplicius vs. Ignorantio: The Boxing Match00:06:39 The Kaleidoscope Hypothesis00:08:40 Is the Mind Software?00:13:15 Critique of Causal Patterns00:14:40 Temperature is Not a Thing00:18:24 The Ship of Theseus & Ontology00:23:45 Metaphors Hardening into Reality00:25:41 The Illusion of AGI Inevitability00:27:45 Prediction vs. Understanding00:32:00 Climbing the Mountain vs. The Helicopter00:34:53 Haptic Realism & The Limits of Knowledge---REFERENCES:Person:[00:00:00] Karl Friston (UCL)https://profiles.ucl.ac.uk/1236-karl-friston[00:06:30] Francois Chollethttps://fchollet.com/[00:14:41] Cesar Hidalgo, MLST interview.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vzpFOJRteeI[00:30:30] Terence Tao's Bloghttps://terrytao.wordpress.com/Book:[00:02:25] The Brain Abstractedhttps://mitpress.mit.edu/9780262548045/the-brain-abstracted/[00:06:00] On Learned Ignorancehttps://www.amazon.com/Nicholas-Cusa-learned-ignorance-translation/dp/0938060236[00:24:15] Science and the Modern Worldhttps://amazon.com/dp/0684836394<truncated, see ReScript>RESCRIPT:https://app.rescript.info/public/share/CYy0ex2M2kvcVRdMnSUky5O7H7hB7v2u_nVhoUiuKD4PDF Transcript: https://app.rescript.info/api/public/sessions/6c44c41e1e0fa6dd/pdf Thank you to Dr. Maxwell Ramstead for early script work on this show (Ph.D student of Friston) and the woodlice story came from him!

Transcribe →

Bayesian Brain, Scientific Method, and Models [Dr. Jeff Beck]

Dec 3101:16:37Tap to summarize

Dr. Jeff Beck, mathematician turned computational neuroscientist, joins us for a fascinating deep dive into why the future of AI might look less like ChatGPT and more like your own brain.**SPONSOR MESSAGES START**—Prolific - Quality data. From real people. For faster breakthroughs.https://www.prolific.com/?utm_source=mlst—**END***What if the key to building truly intelligent machines isn't bigger models, but smarter ones?*In this conversation, Jeff makes a compelling case that we've been building AI backwards. While the tech industry races to scale up transformers and language models, Jeff argues we're missing something fundamental: the brain doesn't work like a giant prediction engine. It works like a scientist, constantly testing hypotheses about a world made of *objects* that interact through *forces* — not pixels and tokens.*The Bayesian Brain* — Jeff explains how your brain is essentially running the scientific method on autopilot. When you combine what you see with what you hear, you're doing optimal Bayesian inference without even knowing it. This isn't just philosophy — it's backed by decades of behavioral experiments showing humans are surprisingly efficient at handling uncertainty.*AutoGrad Changed Everything* — Forget transformers for a moment. Jeff argues the real hero of the AI boom was automatic differentiation, which turned AI from a math problem into an engineering problem. But in the process, we lost sight of what actually makes intelligence work.*The Cat in the Warehouse Problem* — Here's where it gets practical. Imagine a warehouse robot that's never seen a cat. Current AI would either crash or make something up. Jeff's approach? Build models that *know what they don't know*, can phone a friend to download new object models on the fly, and keep learning continuously. It's like giving robots the ability to say "wait, what IS that?" instead of confidently being wrong.*Why Language is a Terrible Model for Thought* — In a provocative twist, Jeff argues that grounding AI in language (like we do with LLMs) is fundamentally misguided. Self-report is the least reliable data in psychology — people routinely explain their own behavior incorrectly. We should be grounding AI in physics, not words.*The Future is Lots of Little Models* — Instead of one massive neural network, Jeff envisions AI systems built like video game engines: thousands of small, modular object models that can be combined, swapped, and updated independently. It's more efficient, more flexible, and much closer to how we actually think.Rescript: https://app.rescript.info/public/share/D-b494t8DIV-KRGYONJghvg-aelMmxSDjKthjGdYqsE---TIMESTAMPS:00:00:00 Introduction & The Bayesian Brain00:01:25 Bayesian Inference & Information Processing00:05:17 The Brain Metaphor: From Levers to Computers00:10:13 Micro vs. Macro Causation & Instrumentalism00:16:59 The Active Inference Community & AutoGrad00:22:54 Object-Centered Models & The Grounding Problem00:35:50 Scaling Bayesian Inference & Architecture Design00:48:05 The Cat in the Warehouse: Solving Generalization00:58:17 Alignment via Belief Exchange01:05:24 Deception, Emergence & Cellular Automata---REFERENCES:Paper:[00:00:24] Zoubin Ghahramani (Google DeepMind)https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3538441/pdf/rsta201[00:19:20] Mamba: Linear-Time Sequence Modelinghttps://arxiv.org/abs/2312.00752[00:27:36] xLSTM: Extended Long Short-Term Memoryhttps://arxiv.org/abs/2405.04517[00:41:12] 3D Gaussian Splattinghttps://repo-sam.inria.fr/fungraph/3d-gaussian-splatting/[01:07:09] Lenia: Biology of Artificial Lifehttps://arxiv.org/abs/1812.05433[01:08:20] Growing Neural Cellular Automatahttps://distill.pub/2020/growing-ca/[01:14:05] DreamCoderhttps://arxiv.org/abs/2006.08381[01:14:58] The Genomic Bottleneckhttps://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-019-11786-6Person:[00:16:42] Karl Friston (UCL)https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PNYWi996Beg

Transcribe →

All episodes

When AI Decides You're a Threat — Brad Carson

Intelligence is collective, not artificial — Prof. Michael I. Jordan (UC Berkeley / Inria)

The AI Models Smart Enough to Know They're Cheating — Beth Barnes & David Rein [METR]

When AI Discovers The Next Transformer - Robert Lange (Sakana)

"Vibe Coding is a Slot Machine" - Jeremy Howard

Evolution "Doesn't Need" Mutation - Blaise Agüera y Arcas

VAEs Are Energy-Based Models? [Dr. Jeff Beck]

Abstraction & Idealization: AI's Plato Problem [Mazviita Chirimuuta]

Why Every Brain Metaphor in History Has Been Wrong [SPECIAL EDITION]

Bayesian Brain, Scientific Method, and Models [Dr. Jeff Beck]