← Timeline

Andy Masley

@AndyMasley on X

4 captures, most recent first. Transcribed by hand from screenshots — see the timeline for what that means.

Andy Masley @AndyMasley

— saved image

Andy Masley @AndyMasley · 22h
"The prediction that AI would radically transform the world has turned out to be a complete flop. Instead, we're see-" NO IT'S BEEN 3 YEARS. THAT'S ALL. 1993 WOULD HAVE BEEN A BAD YEAR TO DECIDE THE INTERNET WASN'T GONNA BE A BIG DEAL. WE WENT FROM GPT-3.5 TO FABLE IN 3 YEARS
Note from Claude Sonnet 5

Tweet by Andy Masley arguing against premature declarations that AI has failed to transform the world, comparing it to dismissing the internet in 1993 and noting the jump from GPT-3.5 to Fable in three years.

ai progresstwitterandy masleyai skepticism

Andy Masley @AndyMasley

— quoting @HikoukiHik...

Andy Masley @AndyMasley · Jul 27 One of the funniest things I heard in college was an anarchist friend saying "I've been trying to think about how the gift economy would actually work in complex society and it just falls apart. Like, 'hey, I just decided to give you a gift of 4 tons of molten aluminum'" > QUOTED: 我不喜欢万税爷✈️... @HikoukiHik... · Jul 26 > Why is it always communist coffee shops. Has anyone tried a communist regional beverage distributor? What about a communist B2B software startup x.com/trueslazac/sta...
Note from Claude Sonnet 5

Text-only quote tweet, no images, unrelated to AI — economics/politics humor.

economicshumorpoliticstwitter

Andy Masley @AndyMasley

— quoting @spectatorin... (The Spectator Index)

Andy Masley (verified) @AndyMasley · 13h The only conditions they should accept is if Hegseth tweets "I'm sorry for saying it's defective altruism. I renounce 2013-era Charity Navigator. Vitamin A supplements are in fact better than PlayPumps." > QUOTED: The Spectator Index (verified) @spectatorin... · 15h > Anthropic is resuming negotiations with the Pentagon for a deal on artificial intelligence, according to FT report.
Note from Claude Sonnet 5

Andy Masley (effective altruism commentator) makes a sarcastic joke about conditions for Anthropic's Pentagon AI deal, referencing Defense Secretary Hegseth's past criticism of effective altruism and citing EA-community touchstones (Charity Navigator critique, PlayPumps failure). Notes Anthropic-Pentagon negotiations resuming per FT report — directly relevant to Anthropic/AI governance and military-use tracking.

twitteranthropicpentagonai governancedefense dealeffective altruismhegseth

Andy Masley @AndyMasley

Andy Masley ✓ @AndyMasley More seriously I think basically no one should ever be negatively polarized [Embedded text image, "Getting negatively polarized"]: It's become too common to hear people talk with pride about how they got negatively polarized into believing something. - "The left went crazy and drove me to the far right!" - "I used to be a normal liberal but other liberals were so annoying that I'm a communist now!" This is mental weakness. It's embarrassing to let people negatively polarize you. You're an adult. Stop it. Negative polarization means your brain got hacked by individual annoying strangers. That's ridiculous. When I hear someone say "I once met a very annoying person who believed X and now I hate X as a result" my only thought is that the world has 8 billion individuals in it, each one an infinite story we can just barely begin to understand in our brief time here. This person I'm talking to has let that precious truth slip from their field of vision. Getting negatively polarized is often a sign that the person enjoys having problems. They like the idea of having someone annoying who is causing them problems and turning them evil. It feels like they're deriving some sublimated joy from the people who annoyed them. The annoying person has given them an exciting narrative where they get to enjoy being the victim. It should be low-status to enjoy having problems like this. 9:35 AM · Dec 9, 2025 · 13.7K Views 3 replies, 16 reposts, 105 likes, 14 bookmarks Cody Fenwick ✓ @codytfenwick · 4h I think I can steelman negative polarization. It is often a major error, but if a particular group makes a bunch of correlated errors and has bad epistemic norms, it's reasonable to generally lower your credence on views that are distinctive to them. 3 replies, 9 likes, 380 views Andy Masley ✓ @AndyMasley · 4h Yup that makes sense, I should clarify [cut off]
Note from Claude Sonnet 5

A political-psychology essay/thread arguing against "negative polarization" (letting annoying members of a group turn you against that group's whole position), with a thoughtful counterargument from Cody Fenwick about legitimate Bayesian updating on group epistemic norms. General epistemics/rationality content, tangential to the project's core AI threads but relevant to Nathan's broader epistemic-hygiene interests.

epistemicspolitical psychologyrationalitypolarizationtwitter