AI/ML should be treated as a discipline for studying change, not constants
burny_tech · x · 2026-07-29
The post argues that AI/ML should be approached like other time-varying disciplines, such as history or economics: the real subject is change itself.
Rather than asking which facts will stay fixed, learners should study which models, pipelines, and events produced the current state of the art and which ones are likely to drive the next shift.
More from AGI Musings
- Anthropic Hints at Achieving Recursive Self-Improvement, Calls for Pacing Frontier — daniel_mac8 · 2026-07-29
- Reducing context rot is still the top priority, even for today’s SOTA models — dejavucoder · 2026-07-29
- AI-safety debate challenge turns into a small Twitter drama — dejavucoder · 2026-07-29
- Dario Amodei says scaling laws and safety concerns drove him to leave OpenAI — JaynitMakwana · 2026-07-29
- A repost asks how “pacing” frontier AI would work in practice — TheTuringPost · 2026-07-29
- AI labs are publicly backing both open weights and tighter frontier oversight — Full_Tangelo_7450 · 2026-07-29