I’ve been using ChatGPT 5 Thinking to evaluate Grok’s fact-checking and it makes me wonder why this kind of feature isn’t already built into a “news” platform—stacking LLM fact-checkers so they compete for accuracy and context. Or at least have Grok Expert or Heavy mode as an

If you only ever read one essay of mine, please let it be this one: metropolitanreview.com/the-power-of-a…

yung macro 宏观年少传奇 why does he talk like chatgpt

The genius of Plato's Academy was that it functioned as a talent magnet and "think tank." It became a sort of political consultancy. Its main product was not ideas or texts but the network itself: a concentration of the smartest individuals in the region, who would spread

This convo makes me really want to see Dwarkesh sit down with John Vervaeke. So much comes up here that Vervaeke tackles through cog-sci and philosophy. Dr John Vervaeke Dwarkesh Patel

I would use OpenAI Deep Research (and equivalent products from other labs) a whole lot more if I'd seen the full list of tools that are available to them - and ideally their system prompts as well but that's less valuable to me than the tool definitions

Happy to announce a book dedicated to Kant & AI, appears in Jan 2026 with Bloomsbury. It addresses: 1) What kinds of machines are intelligent? 2) Are machines capable of being moral? 3) Does an algorithm of perpetual peace exist? Paperback pre-order: bloomsbury.com/uk/kant-machin…

Anthropic’s definition of an agent

Good read for philosophy folks. In calling LLMs “ghosts,” Andrej is more playful but also more sophisticated. Sutton seems to think AGI happens only after we accurately duplicate natural intelligence in algorithmic fashion. But, as Dwarkesh asked in the pod, what if we’re

I’m on an English department committee that voted to create a subcommittee, and that subcommittee is considering the creation of a sub-subcommittee, and now I understand why the Soviet Union collapsed.

You can now ship Next.js apps to @chatgptapp

Around 45 min mark is excellent discussion of key flaw in RL: the reward is given to result, not the process. Right now it’s not easy for companies to reward the right process, so a lot of bizarre behavior is accidentally reinforced because it’s result-oriented.

Is there a website or account that tracks all the different ways current LLMs are limited and how to test through simple chatbot prompts? If not, would be an amazing website.

I was searching Google Scholar for recent publications on Gregory Bateson, cybernetics, and LLMs, and stumbled across this researcher who seems to be using Deep Research tools to pump out tons of pre-prints and publishing them to philpapers.org. The articles read like AI

Here's my translation of Giorgio Agamben's recent text, "On Artificial Intelligence and Natural Stupidity." Agamben suggests that imagination is the key to the present situation, as it is the critical bond linking individuals with separate intelligence. But he asks, what happens

We actually need more people with philosophy degrees working in tech companies (cc Brendan McCord 🏛️ x 🤖 Cosmos Institute)

This is one of the more valuable community notes I’ve seen. The hard thing about calculating externalities around AI is that it’s changing quickly.