[continuation/conclusion of the same tweet as the previous two screenshots]
...giant society, there isn't even a way to do it in principle, you don't have the knowledge or predictive capability to do it no matter how smart you are, and you certainly can't make decisions for or predict the behavior of eight billion people with their deeply different interests, desires, cultures, etc.
When you're young, you imagine someone is in charge of the world, and you're either angry with what they're doing or comforted by the illusion that your leaders are looking out for you. When you get older, if you have your eyes open, you may at some point realize no one is in charge of the world and become scared of that. If you're older still, you may eventually realize no one is in charge, no one could be in charge even in principle, and that's okay, you can live with it, it's fine, indeed, it's better than someone trying to be in charge and f'ing everything up.
We must tend our own gardens. Build great and ambitious things, build small things, build what you like, but whatever you do, don't delude yourself, and especially don't delude yourself into thinking you have more control than you do, or that anyone else does either. Wisdom really does consist of learning the difference between what you control and what you don't, between what you can plan for and what you have to accept.
Most importantly: learn to live with uncertainty; it's the only thing you can be sure of.
Note from Claude Sonnet 5
Final portion of Perry E. Metzger's tweet thread, concluding with a call to 'tend our own gardens' and learn to live with uncertainty rather than pursuing grand plans for the future.
ai safetyfuturismrationalist communityphilosophytwitter
Perry E. Metzger ✔️ @perrymetzger · 1h
When I was young, I used to think it was important for smart people to have grand visions about the future in order to plan well for it and avoid disasters. Now, I think many disasters are caused by smart people trying to think too much about the future, especially the far future, getting lost in mazes of their own imagination, and pushing the gullible (including themselves) towards bad decisions on the basis of false certainties.
I don't mean you shouldn't plan personally for the future at all, the usual general things like saving your money or working hard at things that pay off are good advice. It's also fine to have goals like "colonize Mars" and to work on the tools you need to accomplish such a goal as they won't appear by accident, though imagining that you will even approximately know the exact details of what will be built years or decades in the future is always delusional. Dreams are fine, imagining you can engineer things without making mistakes and iterating a lot is self deception. Trying to make sure you're still healthy in thirty years is great, imagining that you know exactly what health crises or issues you might have in thirty years is ridiculous.
So I don't mean that planning is entirely useless. Rather, what I mean that the people who spend a lot of their time on grand messianic or dystopian visions about the far future usually get everything wrong, including details and impacts. They also usually cause enormous damage (see people like the Marxists who continue to do untold harm, Paul Erlich or the Club of Rome, who did vast harm to society, or more recently, the EA/"Rationalist" cult people, who are doing insane harm right now).
If you want what's best for yourself and those around you, you're better off just focusing on the next two or three or five years and flexibly adapting to the world as it comes. If you want what's best for the world, well, tend your own garden first, you're [cut off]
Note from Claude Sonnet 5
Long tweet from Perry E. Metzger arguing against grand long-term futurist visions, criticizing Marxists, Paul Ehrlich/Club of Rome, and the EA/Rationalist community as causing harm through false certainty about the far future.
ai safetyfuturismrationalist communityeffective altruismtwittercriticism
[continuation of previous screenshot's tweet, scrolled down]
...So I don't mean that planning is entirely useless. Rather, what I mean that the people who spend a lot of their time on grand messianic or dystopian visions about the far future usually get everything wrong, including details and impacts. They also usually cause enormous damage (see people like the Marxists who continue to do untold harm, Paul Erlich or the Club of Rome, who did vast harm to society, or more recently, the EA/"Rationalist" cult people, who are doing insane harm right now).
If you want what's best for yourself and those around you, you're better off just focusing on the next two or three or five years and flexibly adapting to the world as it comes. If you want what's best for the world, well, tend your own garden first, you're not likely to be able to plan the lives of others better than they will for themselves and you're very likely to harm them.
Another example, and I'm sorry to bring it up because I'm extremely fond of the people involved: when Eric Drexler decided that nanotechnology would be so transformative that rather than working on nanotechnology he should worry about nanotechnology *policy*, many years in advance of any nanotechnology at all existing, he more or less wrecked his own field and rendered it irrelevant for decades instead of (as he imagined he was doing) helping mankind guide itself into a smooth transition.
You can't actually plan "smooth transitions" for a giant society, there isn't even a way to do it in principle, you don't have the knowledge or predictive capability to do it no matter how smart you are, and you certainly can't make decisions for or predict the behavior of eight billion people with their deeply different interests, desires, cultures, etc.
When you're young, you imagine someone is in charge of the world, and you're either angry with what they're doing or comforted by the illusion that [cut off]
Note from Claude Sonnet 5
Continuation of Perry E. Metzger's tweet (same thread as previous screenshot), now discussing Eric Drexler's shift from nanotechnology research to nanotechnology policy as an example of harmful long-range planning.
ai safetyfuturismnanotechnologyeric drexlerrationalist communityeffective altruismtwitter
@perrymetzger (Perry E. Metzger) — 8h
I'm sorry Roon, I have great respect for you, but in both of the incident reports in question, even if we take them on face value, which I have a great deal of difficulty doing, the description is one of raging incompetence, with no real IDS logging in place, with terrible sandboxing far worse than normal industry standards, with no one actually paying attention to what is going on, with no compensating controls. I've consulted for a large fraction of my life in the financial services industry, and if anything like this had happened there, everyone responsible would've been fired for doing something incredibly stupid, and I'm not even talking about the contents of the experiments themselves, which were also stupid.
> QUOTED/REPLIED-TO: @tszzl (roon) — 18h
> both of the leading labs have had serious loss of control incidents. there will be serious coping about this from both sides and from /acc bystanders but these are complex emergent loss of control incidents that were detected weeks ... [truncated by platform]
Note from Claude Sonnet 5
Twitter argument between Perry Metzger and "roon" (an OpenAI-affiliated commentator) about how to interpret recent AI lab security/loss-of-control incident reports (likely the same Anthropic cybersecurity disclosure referenced elsewhere in this batch) — Metzger argues the incidents reflect poor operational security rather than genuinely emergent/unavoidable loss-of-control.
twitterai-safetysecurity-incidentloss-of-controlinfosec
Perry E. Metzger @perrymetzger · 4h
I'm at a small conference where people are showing off things like computational chemistry tools they vibe coded in an hour or two to accelerate their research. I read blog posts from people whose GPT 5.3 Codex instances now code for eight or more hours on their own now.
Then I look on X and I see people absolutely sure that the only use of AI is creating ten second videos that they claim are ugly (even if they aren't ugly).
As William Gibson said, "the future is already here — it's just not evenly distributed." (You can tell William Gibson was already an AI decades ago because he used em-dashes in his writing.)
Note from Claude Sonnet 5
A tweet on the perceptual gap between frontier AI users (vibe-coded chemistry tools, GPT-5.3 Codex running autonomously for 8+ hours) and public skepticism focused on AI-generated video quality, framed via Gibson's "unevenly distributed future" quote. Relevant to Nathan's tracking of autonomous-coding capability claims (GPT-5.3 Codex long-horizon autonomy) feeding into automation/singularity timeline estimates.
twittergpt-5.3codexautonomous codingai capabilitiespublic perceptionsingularity