Almanac
← Events
4AI Snake Oil·1mo ago

AI as Normal Technology

A paper by the AI Snake Oil authors argues that AI should be understood as 'normal technology' rather than as something categorically unprecedented, a framing they plan to expand into a book. The piece appears to challenge dominant narratives about AI exceptionalism. The body is minimal, suggesting this is a teaser or announcement for forthcoming work.

Related guides (2)

Related events (8)

4Ai Snake Oil·10d ago·source ↗

Why AI hasn't replaced software engineers, and won't

A commentary piece from the AI Snake Oil / Normal Tech newsletter argues that coding agents should be understood as normal technology rather than transformative replacements for software engineers. The piece examines why AI has not displaced software engineering roles despite significant capability advances. This is a skeptical industry analysis relevant to ongoing debates about AI's impact on software development labor.

6Ai Snake Oil·1mo ago·source ↗

New paper: AI agents that matter

A paper from the AI Snake Oil / Normal Tech group critiques current AI agent benchmarking and evaluation practices. The work argues that existing agent benchmarks are poorly designed for assessing real-world utility, and calls for rethinking how agent performance is measured. The commentary targets the gap between benchmark scores and practical deployment value.

4Ai Snake Oil·1mo ago·source ↗

Do AI Risks Require Extraordinary Government Intervention?

A commentary piece from the AI Snake Oil newsletter (published via normaltech.ai) examines whether AI risks justify extraordinary government intervention. The piece appears to argue against shortcuts in AI governance, emphasizing the importance of rigorous policy work. The article engages with ongoing debates about the appropriate scope and urgency of regulatory responses to AI.

3Ai Snake Oil·1mo ago·source ↗

AI Scaling Myths

A commentary piece from normaltech.ai argues that AI scaling will eventually hit limits, framing the debate as a question of timing rather than whether limits exist. The piece appears to challenge prevailing optimism around continued scaling returns. Given the minimal body text, the depth of argument is unclear, but the topic directly engages the scaling laws debate central to frontier AI development.

3Latent Space·1mo ago·source ↗

[AINews] The Other vs The Utility

A Latent Space commentary piece uses a quiet news day to reflect on the conceptual debate around AI 'character' — framed as 'Clippy vs Anton' — contrasting utility-focused AI design against AI systems conceived as having genuine character or personhood. The piece appears to engage with ongoing discourse about how AI assistants should be designed and perceived. As a tier-2 commentary source, this represents a research-commentary entry on AI alignment and design philosophy.

4One Useful Thing·1mo ago·source ↗

Real AI Agents and Real Work

A commentary piece from One Useful Thing examining the practical deployment of AI agents in real work contexts, framing the tension between human-centered work and AI-generated productivity outputs. The piece appears to analyze how autonomous AI agents are changing knowledge work workflows. Published by a Tier 2 source known for applied AI analysis aimed at practitioners and researchers.

4Ai Snake Oil·1mo ago·source ↗

Is AI Progress Slowing Down?

A commentary piece from the AI Snake Oil newsletter examines recent claims and trends around whether AI progress is decelerating. The article appears to analyze the evidence for and against a slowdown in frontier AI development. As a tier-2 commentary source, it likely synthesizes public signals rather than presenting original research.

4Ai Snake Oil·1mo ago·source ↗

Scientists should use AI as a tool, not an oracle

This commentary critiques the feedback loop between AI hype and scientific research, arguing that scientists who treat AI systems as oracles rather than tools produce flawed research that in turn amplifies further hype. The piece examines how uncritical adoption of AI in scientific workflows can compromise research integrity. It calls for a more epistemically disciplined approach to AI use in science.