Hello, every day I am working on making sure AI doesn't escalate human conflict. - AI-powered social media can reduce polarization rankingchallenge.substack.co… - This is now a product you can use mysky.social - We showed that a rigorous definition of "political neutrality" is possible and increases trust xitter.cf/jonathanstray/status/2… - We've got a proof-of-concept superhuman conflict resolution bot working in the lab - Next is human validation tests, then multi-turn model evals. AI-induced conflict is a catastrophic risk. Here's the broader research agenda: betterconflictbulletin.org/p…

"The scandal is in the selectivity." In an era of abundant fact checks, this is the most common claim of media bias. Not "you are lying" but "why did you cover this instead of that?" Here, the complaint is coming from the left. But I do have some sympathy for what Weiss is trying to do at CBS, because "why did you cover this instead of that?" has been a complaint from the right for a long time -- consider, for example, coverage of social justice issues vs. coverage of unauthorized immigration. Selective coverage is one reason why mainstream outlets have been bleeding out their conservative audiences for decades. I'm not saying I approve of how Weiss is handling this. Swinging from one pole to the other is not really a solution, and I've written elsewhere on what journalism that could be trusted by both sides would like like. But I do think the problem she sees is real. salon.com/2026/10/20/bari-we…

The goal of MySky is to be an open, state-of-the-art reference implementation for good social media algorithms. Here's what that means. - Open as in open source, public API, open data (within the limits of privacy), and open science. - State-of-the-art means we are on the leading edge of development, or near it. Today, this means modern AI-powered infrastructure, for example our prompt-based controls (now in beta). - Reference Implementation means something you can actually use, not just an idea. This also means having real users, because social media cannot be developed in a vacuum. Hence, our algorithm has to be something people actually want to use. - Good means all the things we might want from social media: controllable, transparent, informative, trustworthy, constructive, and more. There are many possible designs, which is why MySky is highly configurable. - Social Media means this is about feeds as opposed to, say, chatbots. Also, we are committed to making MySky genuinely social, something more connecting than television or news. - Algorithm means we are working on the core problem of selecting and ordering content published within a network, i.e. a recommender system. There are lots of other aspects to social media design, for example the user interface can make a big difference, but that’s not our primary area. We're up and running on ATProto. You can try it today! mysky.social/p/mysky-is-an-o…

I wrote a little post on the core vision of the MySky project. We aim to be an open reference implementation for what a "good" social media algorithm looks like. Plus, we give you control over your algorithm in a way no other platform does. mysky.social/p/mysky-is-an-o…

We (@HelenaPuigL and I) are creating a research institute devoted to ensuring that AI makes human conflict more constructive and less violent. The strategy is basic research, proofs-of-concept and public evals. We should call it the _____ Institute

Now we will see if the physicists respond any more constructively than the mathematicians. (I ❤️ mathematicians, but in adjusting to a world where AI exists, their leadership has not been leading.)

Yes, there is definitely some cult-like culture inside of Anthropic and OpenAI. Do not confuse this with whether their predictions are right or wrong.

How to teach human conflict to AI? I'm sitting on both "computational game theory" in the CS dept and "commercial negotiation and mediation" in the law school this term, because neither tradition has a complete answer.

Studying the foundations of mathematical logic with AI in an Oxford pub, good times!

I think all journalists and academics could stand to read this essay on the limitations of "speaking truth to power." "Intellectual courage is extremely important. But without first carefully establishing what’s true, it’s either pointless or harmful. So intellectuals’ primary responsibility is simply to seek and speak the truth, full stop. This job description is less heroic, but it’s more intellectually and socially useful, and it’s less vulnerable to self-deception precisely because it’s less heroic." conspicuouscognition.com/p/s…

What if LLMs did not use "I" in their output? I've heard various versions of this proposal before, and I interpret them as making a psychological causal claim: IF machines didn't use "I" THEN we would relate to them differently. I have doubts. Is there any empirical evidence that "anthropomorphization" in general changes how we relate to or use these machines in any signifcant way?

Before posting confident takes on LLM consciousness (whatever side you're on) maybe at least get yourself familiar with the long history of arguments about whether consciousness can arise from purely mechanical processes? Many of the most obvious ideas are wrong...

Some personal news: I have arrived in Oxford to begin a PhD. I’ll be continuing to study how AI can have positive effects on human conflicts — from arguments to wars, starting with simulations and progressing to field experiments. This is an amazingly stimulating intellectual environment and a beautiful place. I’m thrilled to be here. I will continue my work with @CHAI_Berkeley while I study.