I feel as though that world model strongly correlates with memory - the experience of having jumped to a conclusion early and full-steaming ahead, only to be bitten by constraints and problems later down the track.
Part of that is critical thinking and projecting forward / simulating potential issues, and part of that is that memory which in humans we probably would see as "wisdom".
I don't know if that's a fundamental limitation of LLMs, or, rather, that this can be solved moving forward with better memory systems, harnesses, and context windows.
At no point are the words emotion, moral or conscious used in the article, that last part is purely your own addition.
Also consider: if "AI can do all cognitive and physical work, at human level or better", doesn't that simply entail the AI being able to run 'autonomously, indefinitely' and 'independently of instructions' in the same way as the current state of being run by human overseers?
If we take the initial premise as plausible, for the sake of this argument his thesis seems to hold together very well.
Erdedy's vignette is one of my favourite passages! The Wardine section was the one that had me second guessing, but after two full read throughs I'll be approaching a third next year with the Sierpinksi Gasket in mind :)
FWIW the creator of Clawd (now Molt) is staunchly anti-crypto and has been from the start.
Accusing him of a pump & dump or being in on the scam is really unfair imo, he's been working very hard (and publicly) on Clawd, and has visibly had to deal with a massive influx of attention / hype and a wave of crypto grifters trying to force unofficial tokens down his throat. It must be hugely stressful.
The Ralph & Gastown devs embraced (but did not create) associated crypto projects (Yegge later distanced himself after criticism). They made their software, it gained in popularity and crypto bros latched on of their own accord. It would be interesting to see how many highly principled hners here would turn down mid six figures being offered to them for a tweet or a post acknowledging a token..
As an aside: meme tokens are an attention economy mmog - you may not like the game, but I can assure you those who play it know the rules.
Of course the next step beyond that is "leaking" false information as a decoy by placing large bets on certain events. If that happens enough times it seems like it should wash away the value for agencies hoping to act on "privileged" information.
This mirrors my experience, the non-technical people in my life either shrugged and said 'oh yeah that's cool' or started pointing out gnarly edge cases where it didn't work perfectly. Meanwhile as a techie my mind was (and still is) spinning with the shock and joy of using natural human language to converse with a super-humanly adept machine.
From 10 December 2025, anyone under 16 in Australia won’t be able to keep or make accounts on social media apps like TikTok, Instagram, YouTube, Snapchat, X, Facebook and more. The rule doesn’t punish young people or their families, instead, social media companies have to stop under-16s from having accounts or risk serious fines (up to about $50 million).
The strongest counterpoint to that is the intense chilling effect that zero anonymity would have on political dissent and discourse that doesn't match the status quo or party line. I feel that would be much more dangerous for our society than occasionally suffering the consequence of some radicalized edge cases.
Part of that is critical thinking and projecting forward / simulating potential issues, and part of that is that memory which in humans we probably would see as "wisdom".
I don't know if that's a fundamental limitation of LLMs, or, rather, that this can be solved moving forward with better memory systems, harnesses, and context windows.