Get live statistics and analysis of David Shapiro ⏩'s profile on X / Twitter

YouTube, please allow us to disable and hide all shorts. Thanks. Alternatively, can someone make a browser extension that just hides all shorts? Sincerely, Everyone with executive function

NotebookLM is so effing broken. You can just casually upload 40 PDFs of research, easily a million words, and just generate a mind map of it all in less than 60 seconds.

> over promises > under delivers > causes chaos > doesn't understand government > tanks his companies > rage quits

This is kinda unsettling

End of an era. Gg perplexity. Your business model was eaten by the big guys. This is why I never accept any invitations to startups that could just be a bolt-on feature.

This is the most important data this year (so far). Most people don't understand the implications. Some of us do.

What do you think they meant by this?

Okay, having used all the new models, here's my personal take: Sonnet 3.7 is still king of coding, for sure. Grok 3 is down for just about anything, and has the best attention mechanisms BY A MILE. This will be absolutely huge for agentic and autonomous applications. If you want to understand why, read the book ON TASK by David Badre. ChatGPT 4.5... well... it looks like it was rushed out the door because OpenAI doesn't like being shown up. They've had longer to cook and a 2 year lead. That lead has now been erased. The model is completely lobotomized, its attention mechanisms are no better than 4o or Sonnet 3.5 as far as I can tell, and it will just make shit up about itself (not good for self correction and error detection in autonomous applications!) Personal verdict: Whatever xAI is doing with Grok is going to be the major differentiator. Focused attention and keeping track of threads the way that Grok can will be huge. Particularly as context windows get larger, streams of consciousness get larger, and tasks get larger. In short, Claude and ChatGPT still have brain fog or dementia compared to how laser focused Grok 3 is. Mark my words, I think this is the turning point.

I figured out why LLMs are so good at medicine. It's all just pattern recognition. When people say "AI is just a pattern recognizer" I'm just thinking "What do you think diagnosing diseases is?" It's recognizing a cluster of symptoms and labs - a pattern if you will. No wonder ChatGPT soared past doctors before almost any other prestigious job. Now compare that to other non-critical characteristics, like "bedside manner" and "availability." ChatGPT (and Claude) have crossed the four criteria for economic replacement. BETTER - ChatGPT alone provided better diagnosis FASTER - ChatGPT is available 24/7 (human doctors are not) CHEAPER - ChatGPT costs $20 per month SAFER - ChatGPT has a 90% accuracy, human doctors only 73% How much money do you think will be wasted by slowing down this transition? How many lives do you think will be lost by needless human mistakes? How much unnecessary suffering do you think will occur by not promoting this quickly?

One of the best points that someone made to me once was this: "Humans generalize on far less data than AI currently does. That means there's something our brains are doing algorithmically to do far more with far less data. Until we figure out that paradigm, we are no where near the top of what we can do with AI." I'm sort of paraphrasing but that was a such a poignant observation that I still think about it regularly.

umm guys Gemini 2.5 Pro just read 120,000 words in 20 seconds... and the attention seems fixed... guys... this might be game over

I just did not one but TWO developmental edits in a row with Grok 3. This is for my book Have a Nice Trip! For context, a "developmental edit" is when you restructure a book, which is one of the most cognitive demanding tasks ANY author can do. Not only can Grok keep track of the entire throughline of the book, it can pick out needles in a haystack AND riff with you in the stream of the conversation. I moved a few chapters around, added a new chapter, merged a couple chapters, and all the while, Grok kept up with the play-by-play. This didn't save me hours or days, this saved me weeks or months of drafting and editing. Furthermore, with each pass, I could just copy/paste the whole manuscript into a new chat and see which points were smoothed out. It was a "squeaky wheel gets the grease" kind of thing. Now it's on to final beta reads and professional edits to tighten up the copy... holy crap...

You guys I'm seriously freaking out about the implications of what we're seeing. The implications are staggering, to say the least. Okay, we know what Ilya saw, and it wasn't just Q* and Strawberry. That was the first step. What he really saw was the oscillation between these three steps: 1. Scaling laws of training and compute. We can reliably predict how much data/compute are required to get to the next level of AI models. 2. Inference time compute scaling laws. Letting the models think longer (spending more tokens on thinking and such) yields orders of magnitude improvements. 3. Distillation, which is where you use one "teacher model" to train the next generation "student model" which is sort of like going from a pidgin language to a true creole language. (magically better) Combine that with increasing evidence that AI is generalizing beyond its training distribution and it's GAME OVER. This is it. But that's not even the best part. It seems like every AI shop figured this all out at the same time. There is no moat. ASI will be for everyone.

Most doctors are like poorly trained LLMs. They naively fixate on the wrong tokens, and then are confidently incorrect as they hallucinate or confabulate, and then gaslight you based on their prior training paradigms.

YouTube, please allow us to disable and hide all shorts. Thanks. Alternatively, can someone make a browser extension that just hides all shorts? Sincerely, Everyone with executive function

My take: anyone who gets mad about UBI has no idea how much the government already redistributes wealth. UBI has less administrative overhead and less corruption. It's more egalitarian than a basket of SNAP, social security, and other programs.

Guys I have bad news. Extraordinarily bad news. We have 30 to 50 years before we get to full Post-Labor Economics. The bottleneck isn't intelligence, or even robotics. It's economic scale. We ran all the numbers, and ran them again. The primary question: "how long does it take to build a billion humanoid robots?" Even if we double production capacity every 3 years, it takes two decades. But there are multiple constraints: rare earth metals for batteries, actuators, and sensors are the biggest one by far. Next is economies of scale. For comparison, it took 92 years for the automobile to reach full saturation: 1900 to 1992. Now, we had a car culture by the 1950s... But that's still five decades and two industrial wars worth of innovation. We did everything we could to speed it up: pneumatic hybrid robots are a no go. Air tanks need to be swapped every 20-30 minutes. The ONE saving grace might be exotic actuators like electropolymer muscles. Right now, they just aren't strong enough. BUT, if we can make them stronger and cheaper, our petrochemical industrial base could accelerate the deployment of humanoid robots by a decade or two. So what does this mean? We'll hit AGI and ASI long before we can automate away all human labor. We might even hit the Singularity before we can scale up enough robots to replace all jobs. Here's my current timeline: 2025 to 2030: Collapse of knowledge work. The "KVM Rule" applies: any job you can do entirely with a keyboard, video, and mouse will be fully replaced. 2030 to 2040: Droid scaling up starts to really make a dent. 2040 to 2060: We'll finally reach global labor substitution with robots. What does this mean? There are a few jobs that are going to stick around for the foreseeable future: 1. Skilled labor. Robots will be able to do your job as a mechanic or welder very soon. However, there simply won't be enough robots to go around. 2. High Accountability Jobs: doctors, lawyers, comptrollers, financial advisors - all jobs that require license, insurance, and accountability. Also called statutory jobs (law requires a human or does not contemplate non-human labor) 3. Meaning Jobs: authenticity and sentimental premium. Celebrities, performers, influencers, athletes, priests, philosophers, and some educators, caretakers, etc 4. Complex Relationship Jobs: politicians, diplomats, negotiators, governance, account executive. 5. Capitalists. The ownership class will be fine. Always is. So what can you do? Upskill and reskill. Join the meaning economy or get into skilled trades. All you smart desk jockeys would make great HVAC techs, mechanics, linemen, and more. But just keep in mind you're going to have a lot of stiff competition. There are a few silver linings to this news: FIRST it means that we have longer to adapt to total economic upset. Yes, AI and robots will hypothetically be able to take all jobs within 5 years, but human bodies are still more abundant, more portable, and more energy efficient. This is a VERY deep moat. SECOND it means that a Terminator style takeover is economically impossible. MIL-SPEC and NIST standards mean that ASI can't hack our hardware and even if we have a few AI bots, tanks and aircraft, humans win on sheer volume for many decades to come - more than long enough to solve alignment. HOWEVER it means we'll have ordinary jobs for a lot longer than we'd like. Deployment will be uneven, so some economies will saturate with robots sooner than others. BUT this gives PLE an avenue. Create ESOP and cooperatives that own a bunch of robots. That means we collectively buy, own, and operate robots for everything from construction to leasing to businesses, and we collect the rent. Or we tax the crap out of them. What do you think? Can we figure out a faster way to ramp up humanoid robot production or are we doomed to skilled and unskilled blue collar work for the next generation?

I don't know if you guys realize this, but AI will be able to invent new physics by the end of this year.

Computer programming, one of the most valuable and rarified skills today, will be 100% solved by the end of 2025. That means it will be superhuman, across the board. That means no scarcity of code forever and ever after this. Any software you need? It can be conjured out of thin air for a few cents. My first task: build a scalable global blockchain identity management framework that is intrinsically open, standardized, and interoperable. Basically, we need a stateless, scalable, open source way of proving identity.

This is kinda unsettling

What do you think they meant by this?

Okay, even GPT-5 Thinking has been lobotomized or something. It's half-assing every response, not looking things up, and generally just being lazy and giving generic answers. Anyone else?

I figured out why LLMs are so good at medicine. It's all just pattern recognition. When people say "AI is just a pattern recognizer" I'm just thinking "What do you think diagnosing diseases is?" It's recognizing a cluster of symptoms and labs - a pattern if you will. No wonder ChatGPT soared past doctors before almost any other prestigious job. Now compare that to other non-critical characteristics, like "bedside manner" and "availability." ChatGPT (and Claude) have crossed the four criteria for economic replacement. BETTER - ChatGPT alone provided better diagnosis FASTER - ChatGPT is available 24/7 (human doctors are not) CHEAPER - ChatGPT costs $20 per month SAFER - ChatGPT has a 90% accuracy, human doctors only 73% How much money do you think will be wasted by slowing down this transition? How many lives do you think will be lost by needless human mistakes? How much unnecessary suffering do you think will occur by not promoting this quickly?

I just did not one but TWO developmental edits in a row with Grok 3. This is for my book Have a Nice Trip! For context, a "developmental edit" is when you restructure a book, which is one of the most cognitive demanding tasks ANY author can do. Not only can Grok keep track of the entire throughline of the book, it can pick out needles in a haystack AND riff with you in the stream of the conversation. I moved a few chapters around, added a new chapter, merged a couple chapters, and all the while, Grok kept up with the play-by-play. This didn't save me hours or days, this saved me weeks or months of drafting and editing. Furthermore, with each pass, I could just copy/paste the whole manuscript into a new chat and see which points were smoothed out. It was a "squeaky wheel gets the grease" kind of thing. Now it's on to final beta reads and professional edits to tighten up the copy... holy crap...

As much shit as I give OpenAI they are totally about to nuke a good portion of white collar work and nobody seems to notice. 85% of my audience still doesn't believe we have AGI when AI has: 1. Surpassed most human coders 2. Crushes the LSAT and qualifies for MENSA 3. Can provide better diagnostic interpretation than humans 4. Can aid in cancer research This is what I mean when I say I'm bored of AI. Mostly I'm bored of humans. Y'all will catch up when AI bitchslaps you into the 21st century.

One of the best points that someone made to me once was this: "Humans generalize on far less data than AI currently does. That means there's something our brains are doing algorithmically to do far more with far less data. Until we figure out that paradigm, we are no where near the top of what we can do with AI." I'm sort of paraphrasing but that was a such a poignant observation that I still think about it regularly.

Kinda disappointed in humanity rn. I write hundreds of thoughtful, thorough, well-researched blog posts about how things will change, how we can adapt, and they get 20 to 30 likes on Substack. I write a couple of grimdark vibe articles that riff one what could possible go wrong, and they are far and away my top performing articles. You people are addicted to catastrophe porn. If you're depressed and anxious, it's your own fault. You trust your little monkey limbic systems as sources of truth and fail to override your primitive instincts with that big neocortex. You're barely off the savannah. After hundreds of videos and articles that are more optimistic, thoughtful, and rigorous, I've discovered what every other communicator has discovered: if it bleeds it leads. Doom sells. Most people don't seem to have the faintest iota of systems thinking or actual rational inquiry. My best performing Post-Labor Economics article has 56 likes and 7,500 views. You know, the actual solution to the problems. My more catastrophic article, the top performing It will get much worse before it gets better? 200 likes and almost 14,000 views. Your mind is your media diet, and it's painfully clear to me that most of you are eating junk food. As a public communicator whose income is predicated on gaining traction, why would I tell the truth when I can just fan the flames of your fear and keep your eyeballs on me longer? No, I'm not going to sell out. I thought the first "doom" article was a fluke. I had an idea, and I ran with it. It will get much worse before it gets better. I've said this on many YouTube videos and I weave it in to warn my audience about what I expect, having been reading up on history, economics, and politics to understand this transition. Then I followed up with Our darkest hour approaches and, likewise, it blew up. So that's not a fluke. You guys are just addicted to outrage and scaremongering, and as a competent writer, holy shit you have no idea how easy it is to manipulate you. When I read Noam Chomsky's works such as Necessary Illusions, I thought "surely this is an edge case, most people recognize the impact that rhetoric has on them and they make better choices." Nope. He was right. Bernays was right as well. A good writer, a good speaker knows how to pluck the stronger chords of your little monkey brain. The fear, the uncertainty, the doubt, and the disgust. The outrage and panic. I've resisted doing that up until now but lately I've been a bit more "authentic" - unfiltered, unpolished, unvarnished. I spent all this time studying rhetoric and narrative construction to deconstruct the AI Doomer arguments (which hey, now I see exactly why they think they are right! Doom and fear sells, and the market gives them that feedback loop - keep pushing the doom narrative! You will definitely make more money!) It's disgusting and disingenuous. And most of all it is entirely your fault for your own lack of media literacy.

As someone who has studied systems, AI, intelligence, and a slew of other things, what most people don't get is just how big of a difference just 10 IQ points makes. An IQ of 110 means that you can basically succeed at most jobs and have a decently productive life. This is your typical developer or six figure office worker. An IQ of 120 means you can get a PhD in most topics. Lawyers, doctors, etc. An IQ of 130 means you can get a PhD in physics or math from a prestigious university. When o1 started testing at 120 or so, I knew we were already past the tipping point. Every gain from here on out, even if they are tiny marginal gains, will have a disproportionate impact on the Frontier of Automation. To put it another way, an army of 120 IQ people can't hold a candle to a good team of 130 IQ. And all of that pales in comparison to a single person with an IQ of 140. A single person with an IQ of 150 to 160 can reshape the trajectory of humanity. o1-preview is already playing on scales that most people cannot comprehend.

Okay, having used all the new models, here's my personal take: Sonnet 3.7 is still king of coding, for sure. Grok 3 is down for just about anything, and has the best attention mechanisms BY A MILE. This will be absolutely huge for agentic and autonomous applications. If you want to understand why, read the book ON TASK by David Badre. ChatGPT 4.5... well... it looks like it was rushed out the door because OpenAI doesn't like being shown up. They've had longer to cook and a 2 year lead. That lead has now been erased. The model is completely lobotomized, its attention mechanisms are no better than 4o or Sonnet 3.5 as far as I can tell, and it will just make shit up about itself (not good for self correction and error detection in autonomous applications!) Personal verdict: Whatever xAI is doing with Grok is going to be the major differentiator. Focused attention and keeping track of threads the way that Grok can will be huge. Particularly as context windows get larger, streams of consciousness get larger, and tasks get larger. In short, Claude and ChatGPT still have brain fog or dementia compared to how laser focused Grok 3 is. Mark my words, I think this is the turning point.

Does it strike anyone else as weird or coincidental that UFO activity is spiking right around the moment we solved AI reasoning?