Twin Falls Today

What began as a tossed-off social media challenge to debate AI risk spiraled into something far stranger: an exhaustive, point-by-point rebuttal that doubles as a referendum on how one of the world's most prominent public intellectuals has talked about artificial intelligence for over a decade. The writer—a blogger who's been tracking AI capabilities since the GPT-2 era—accuses Steven Pinker of repeatedly mischaracterizing the AI safety movement: claiming doomers believe in 100% extinction probabilities (nobody does), insisting they envision "omniscient, omnipotent" machines (the field's own foundational texts explicitly reject this), and citing a RAND study as debunking extinction risk when the study's actual conclusion was the opposite. The piece digs into technical arguments too—why intelligence might be a real, measurable thing extrapolatable from rats to primates to language models, and why AI systems might develop self-preservation instincts without a shred of Darwinian history behind them. But beneath the citations and screenshots is something more personal: a sense of betrayal from someone who calls Pinker an intellectual hero, now watching him, in the writer's view, cherry-pick fringe skeptics as "experts" while ignoring the Nobel and Turing Award winners sounding alarms. The result is part debate challenge, part open letter, part reluctant takedown—a window into how fiercely the fight over AI's future is being waged not in labs, but in the reputations of the people the public trusts to explain it.

Before anyone took them seriously, they were the office weirdos insisting that machines would soon think. Now they run companies worth trillions and sit across the table from presidents. A new book, built on years of reporting inside OpenAI, Anthropic, and DeepMind, argues that the AI boom was never really a story about technology — it was a story about belief, and what happens when true believers suddenly get proven right. This account traces how Sam Altman, Dario Amodei, and Demis Hassabis — three of the most competitive people in tech — turned science-fiction fantasies and faith in scaling laws into the defining industry of our time, overcoming scorn from the likes of Bill Gates along the way. It digs into the uneasy comparison to the Manhattan Project, except this time the scientists kept the company, the fortune, and the power instead of handing the bomb to the generals. It probes a mysterious chapter at Baidu that may explain why Dario Amodei became the most China-hawkish of the major lab leaders, and it charts how Washington — now arguably America's second-most "AI-pilled" city — is waking up to a technology that may threaten not just jobs, but the power of politics itself. What emerges is less a clean narrative of inevitable progress than a messy human one: brilliant, stubborn people wrestling with ego, idealism, and the discomfort of compromise, trying to steer something they're not sure anyone — including themselves — actually wanted.