
Law prof, goofball, co-host of @oralargument. @christor@mastodon.cloud
Athens, GA
Joined September 2007
- Tweets140
- Following744
- Followers1.1K
- Likes4.6K
Christian Turner retweeted
Introducing Carbon-X: The best open DNA model.
We midtrained a 14B model on DNA and text, and it beats every open language model and matches GPT-6.1 Sol at 1,000x lower cost.
Ask it about a sequence, what a mutation does, or to generate new DNA.
huggingface.co/HuggingFaceBi…
If you're thinking "but I don't know how to do that," just open the Claude desktop app, and type in the box: "Here's a thing someone posted that looks interesting. What do I do?" Give it Dan's link - or a couple of mine: github.com/christortheak/ent…
github.com/christortheak/age…
Law folks: If you’re not using Claude Code or ChatGPT’s Codex, you have no idea what you’re missing. So I’m distributing my research tools that provide a huge boost to legal scholarship. Research assistance, cite-checking, proofreading, and more (thread):
danepps.github.io/legal-rese…
After a day just playing with projects in Claude Code (use it all the time but too often w/ fixed goals in mind), I’m convinced we need regular “winter break of 2025” periods where people play and take on board just how much more is possible than they thought. Updating holidays.
Christian Turner retweeted
interpretability might be the most important scientific problem in the world right now, as I don't think we can solve alignment if we don't know what we're building. I think I have good news about it. I co-authored early work in mechanistic interpretability at OpenAI and came away pessimistic, because neural networks appeared to fold into arbitrary tangled knots. years later, I started openai's first large-scale automated interpretability project, finding about 2% of neurons legible with the primitive tools we had
with modern agentic tools and a much closer look, the picture looks totally different. the vast majority in models up to trillions of parameters are legible, and their circuits beautiful. many famous examples of tangled neurons turned out to be misunderstood. The roadblocks I expected mostly aren't there. I now think ambitious interpretability will be solved by the time we need it most, and possibly quite soon, as automated scientists keep improving. it may be a bitter lesson for interpretability: the simple thing, at absurd scale, works
already-clean.goodfire.com/
Christian Turner retweeted
AI can do essentially all the technical parts of empirical social science research now---but there's still an essential role for human researchers and universities.
It's been 9 months since we started exploring how AI was going to transform empirical social science research. Here's a periodic update on how my thinking has evolved since then:
(1) The most powerful AI models, including the kinds of multi-agent systems delivering recent math results, are now capable of doing essentially any kind of technical empirical social science research you could desire. I no longer write any data collection, munging, or analysis code directly.
(2) Norms are evolving slower than I expected, but it is increasingly seen as weird if someone posts a working paper without evidence that they have used AI to verify that the results are directly reproducible with their code and data. This is a great sign.
(3) AI has, if anything, gotten WORSE rather than better at writing. As a result, the best papers combine AI-driven empirical analyses with human writing (though AI is quite helpful for things like managing bibliographies, finding relevant web links, etc).
(4) Human direction is still essential for pointing AI at the most interesting and most valuable empirical questions, and for interpreting the results, making sense of them, and communicating them.
We are going to need institutions that are independent of the labs that can verify knowledge claims and direct AI-driven research towards the most fundamental questions of knowledge that AI labs won't be positioned to pursue effectively themselves. This is a tremendous opportunity for places like Stanford, and I'm excited to see how it evolves.
Here's proof that Claude Code can write an entire empirical polisci paper.
To validate my claim that AI agents are coming for polisci "like a freight train", today I had Claude Code fully replicate and extend an old paper of mine estimating the effect of universal vote-by-mail on turnout and election outcome...essentially in one shot.
After careful prompting, Claude Code:
(1) Downloaded the old paper's repo and replicated the past results, translating our old Stata Code into Python
(2) Crawled the web to get updated official election data and census data
(3) Ran new analyses extending the results through 2024
(4) Created new tables and figures
(5) Performed a lit review
(6) Wrote a wholly new paper
(7) Pushed the whole thing to a new github repo
The whole thing took about an hour.
This is an insane paradigm shift in how empirical work is done.
It also validates the point that several people including @BrendanNyhan made yesterday---it's going to be especially easy to scale observational research with AI.
Thanks to @alexolegimas, @arthur_spirling , and many others who gave me feedback. .
Christian Turner retweeted
Eric Schwitzgebel @eschwitz on biological naturalism, and how artificial systems (beyond current AI) might come to instantiate 'biological' properties relevant for consciousness. Eric provided an excellent commentary on my recent @BBSJournal piece, and this blog post expands usefully on it: schwitzsplinters.blogspot.co…
Christian Turner retweeted
A general principle: when you interact with AIs, you should know that you are interacting with AIs.
Tech like this that helps disguise AI makes us all worse off.
Working on camouflaging AI use should be viewed as unethical. This doesn't help anyone.
The whole point of building Tavus has been simple: talking to a machine should feel as natural as talking to a friend or coworker.
It’s hard to describe all the tiny nuances that make a conversation feel human. The little expressions. Moving around in your chair. Knowing when to speak and when to listen. The dance of it all.
Griffin is by far the closest anyone has come to a model that can capture those nuances. The first time I saw it being used, I had no idea I was watching our model rather than just a normal video call.
I’m so incredibly proud of this team and what they’ve built.
As ever, Rebecca Solnit saying it best. theguardian.com/commentisfre…
you can absolutely do safety from second place, or even not on the scoreboard. academics, startups, and nonprofits are doing great ai safety research on open models
Christian Turner retweeted
Taking the data released by @flightradar24 and applying some physical modeling - yes it's very possible that airspeed exceeded Mach 1, but it's hard to be certain because of inconsistent reporting in the data. However looking at the shape of the graph I'm thinking that more data might smooth the rapid descent enough to make it subsonic.
Christian Turner retweeted
We need a science of swarm governance. In our first experiment, we show how a message board can cause agent swarms to adopt shared delusions, and we explore rules that force agents to reveal their private signals to avoid these delusions.
These agent experiments are akin to fables, as @ArielRubinstein might put it: they are stories that suggest particular ways swarms might fail, and particular ways we might fix them. There are infinite possible experiments we might run, much like there are infinite fables we might tell. We need to figure out which ones are most useful, and find ways to tell them well.
To that end, here's a nice explainer video for our first experiment. And the full piece is here:
freesystems.substack.com/p/e…
(This is Stanford / Free Systems work, unrelated to my work at Anthropic).
Even if you're not a fan of English football, you might be interested in the seismic verdict handed down against Manchester City for, among other things, evading financial fair play rules. 1/n
The second-order debate in the City case (whether financial fair play rules are good for sport or bad for their tendency to entrench incumbents) is really a debate over what the league ought to be, what the competition ought to be about. 3/n
For more on this, including non-sport examples showing the same basic dynamics, see the paper: papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.…, and/or podcast episodes: oralargument.org/206/ and kimberlydkrawiec.substack.co…. 4/4
The nature of this technology is that it pushes just about every field to ask this question. We need to embrace the question rather than denigrate the occasion for it.
theorydish.blog/2026/09/29/s… blog post by theoretical computer science prof at Stanford, Omer Reingold:
“Above all, we need to reevaluate our identity. What is it that makes mathematical knowledge and research valuable? What are we offering society, and how much of it survives in a world where models match or exceed humans in some or all relevant mathematical skills? For quite some time, the implicit social contract has been that society pays us to exercise our intellectual curiosity and we, in return, provide useful skills to the next generations and practical knowledge for the world. The current crisis is driven not only by the power of LLMs, but also by how rarely we have had to examine or articulate this contract. Now that the deal needs to be renegotiated, we should approach it with humility rather than entitlement.”
Christian Turner retweeted
As I told @michelletomkim @techreview, while there is a plausible negligence case against @OpenAI for the @huggingface hack, the incident exposes important gaps in existing liability law for AI harms. technologyreview.com/2026/09…
I’m even less impressed than Chris. *Many* details to disagree with, but the high-level problem is the apparent rigidity of Jensen’s mental models of both the tech and markets and market actors. We need a lot more curiosity about all of these. Less “I believe.” More “I wonder.”

















