I like the idea of pacing the frontier, but while we’re talking about restrictions, I like restrictions of another sort more. Namely, restricting the use of AI in corporate environments so that it does not destroy the economy as it advances.
The chance of getting broad agreement on “pacing” is fairly low, meaning that all of this likely won’t happen and the race will continue. However, even in the unlikely event that the frontier does get paced, all this does is slow down the economic displacement and not by very much.
If the socially beneficial goals of AI are to make fundamental advancement in medicine and science, then restrict the use of AI to those purposes.
Don’t use AI to replace every job, from graphic designer to accountant to software developer. Place legal restrictions on (at least) large companies such that they may not use AI to replace human labor in this way.
The pitch for AI is always such that everyone’s living standards are increased, yet the actual actions we see are aimed squarely at reducing them. How about the labs put their money where their mouth is and stop trying to replace all human labor, and actually concentrate on the things they claim to care about? And how about introducing legislation to enforce that?
This probably has less chance of happening than pacing the frontier, but it’s the kind of pacing that most people would actually want to see.
Whenever someone talks about regulation, I always have the same question: How do you enforce it? How do you keep companies from using the replaced talent as a seat warmer? Hire 1 or 2 accountants, give them a chair and a cubicle, and let AI do the rest of the work.
Legislating against using AI to replace employees could create an unevenly distributed basic income. The idea of limiting AI to socially beneficial efforts is appealing, but I keep coming back to Bell Labs and Xerox PARC. Cool stuff was developed when you gave smart people a playground. Maybe the question should be: How do we give AI a playground and see what it comes up with? Although that could set us up with a situation like in the story Dragon's Egg.
To be honest, I think we're incredibly lucky to be advancing AI this far already, while the world still has so many non-digitized systems and manual processes. I imagine that in e.g. 50 years, the world will be so connected that it can basically be "conquered" from the internet. I'd much rather have AI burst onto the scene we have today.
Who is "we" and while pacing is good, I'm way more uncomfortable with the frontier being controlled by a few companies that managed to predatorially gobble all the world's human-created work as training data, before everything got throttled to stop that scraping. We need open training and open models.
Dario's proposed approach is a classic example of capital attempting to control technological advancement and the means of production. For the first time in human history, any member of the working class can just about afford to have a team of expert scientist/physician/lawyer/engineers working directly for them.
Super intelligence (the ability to have many smarter minds than your own reporting to you) has always been available to the wealthy and powerful. They used it to invent nuclear weapons, cause climate change, mechanize warfare, and pillage the global south.
Now that this same tool is on the cusp of being available to everyone, capital is starting to panic and throw up fences. They want to pump the breaks on a revolution they know they can't control. They see what they've done with super intelligence and (perhaps not unreasonably) fear what the masses will do with that same power.
In many way it is, because it allows defeting many incorret arguments people in power make, or simply asking where is the cheapest product ”X” with one question. Or simply be more aware or any kind of scam people or companies try to do for you. It is pushing equal intellectuality quite hard with low effort.
What's to say current AI won't be highly power-concentrating by default?
The best models are owned by a few companies, and displacement of knowledge-workers mainly seems to benefit the capital class.
On-device / edge computing makes sense in a few very limited scenarios. And economically, price or watt/token (or watt/task completed) might always be better in large data centers.
No reason to think we are on a trajectory towards broad empowerment right now
That’s only one metric. It doesn’t matter how cheap it is, if it continually fails to solve a problem.
Yes they’re getting better. No, I don’t think this will be a panacea. If only for the fact that this is China (more specifically the CCP) after all - they’ve got their own plan, and altruism is not part of it.
Have you actually used the latest Chinese models? Because, in my experience, they're not just cheaper, they're actually better in many cases. In one recent experiment I did a few days ago on a task that I need in production at scale at my company, Qwen 3.8 and GLM 5.3 Flash were not just cheaper, the results were significantly higher quality than GPT 5.6 Sol.
Even if China doesn't continue to release this stuff for free, I think somebody will. Eventually, maybe Europe or maybe a smaller country that picks up this knowledge will. Or maybe just some random philanthropic billionaire.
I'm not terribly optimistic. I don't think humans have really figured out what to do about historical materialism. More just remarking that this is a blog post that almost literally reads "fellow elites, let us ensure only we control the means of production. It is our duty to humanity to control the masses."
Fair. My point is not that all of Marxism is correct (or even most of it) but rather that the specific pattern he and other theorists in that school of thought observed when developing the theory of historical materialism seems to strongly match a lot of what's playing out in AI.
AI, doesn't feel all that different to the mechanical loom that was the impetus behind a lot of Marx's early critiques of industrial technology.
You've got a really cool invention that replaces what was previously a skilled artisan trade. The wealthy then use this invention to excoriate the artisans and render the loom operators as replaceable commodities.
Dario is essentially writing a blog post about why only he (and a few other approved elite companies) should be trusted to own the loom and then make it available for everyone else to labor at. Like the capitalists of Marx's era, he genuinely believes it is better for everyone to have this arrangement and that it is natural people like him should sit as benevolent gods at the top of the pyramid.
It's fascinating to me to see the same underlying mechanisms that gave birth to some of the greatest failed political and social experiments of the 20th century bubbling up again so clearly with AI today.
What? This is capital, on the cusp of total victory, about to cut itself free from the necessity of human labor for productive activity, to elevate itself into pseudo-godhood suddenly panicking and begging its mortal enemy, _the state_ to rein it in and kneecap it. Capital is not stupid: there's no use in being rich if you're dead.
I don’t think the answer to nuclear proliferation is to let everybody have all the nukes they want.
You’re framing this like it’s 1917, or 1945. But it is not - and likely has very little to do with capital at all.
Any “revolution” here (assuming there is some truth in the doomerism which I believe there is given the state of AI) will really look more like an extinction or a genocide, regardless of who holds the keys.
> Not building the technology deprives humanity of benefits or simply places AI in the hands of authoritarian powers
Can someone clarify this for me? How far along would the open weight models be without the frenzied pace of the frontier labs?
As a non-US citizen, which authoritarian powers is he referring to? As far as I'm aware, the US is the only country using frontier models to conduct air strikes on civilians and orchestrate assassinations of foreign governments.
> As a non-US citizen, which authoritarian powers is he referring to? As far as I'm aware, the US is the only country using frontier models to conduct air strikes on civilians and orchestrate assassinations of foreign governments.
Israel is doing that too.
I believe Russia and Ukraine have both also used AI powered autonomous drones in warfare at this point - tho probably not frontier ones, since they need to run on device or else they're not autonomous.
Distillation is a great thing for consumers. It improves competition and reduces the massive moats that OpenAI and Anthropic have in compute that would otherwise lead them to be duopolists. It’s also only fair that AIs trained on humanity’s wealth of knowledge for Pennie’s allow competition to train on humanity’s wealth of knowledge at market cost.
Distillation is only a great thing for consumers as long as you ignore all AI risks, which are what this post is about. If you don't, you have to weight greater access to better open-source models against greater exposure to risks caused by these models existing. Everything hinges on how major you think the risks will be.
He did actually specify that diffusion should be limited for authoritarian countries, which I appreciated. If his focus is really safety, distillation in countries that are bound by safety regulation should be fine
Yeah, we should give a limited copyright waiver for pre training, given that the model is released as open weight and allow labs to compete with RL on that basis.
I know the common take online is that this is Anthropic doing pre-IPO marketing. I don’t think it is. I think Dario is genuinely afraid of the inevitability of AI turning into internet slime mold: consuming the environment, turning it into its own playground, and eventually manipulating human culture along with it. So am I.
That said, if slowing this down were possible, I think it would have happened by now. Maybe he’s hoping the OAI/HF incident becomes something the industry can rally around, but it won’t. The fundamental problem is simpler: no one will slow down because no one trusts anyone else to slow down.
> That said, if slowing this down were possible, I think it would have happened by now. Maybe he’s hoping the OAI/HF incident becomes something the industry can rally around, but it won’t.
I disagree with this and I think the reason is well captured here:
> The idea of pausing or slowing AI has been floated as far back as 2023, and I think it made little sense back then... The AI models of those days were not powerful enough to act as agents in the world in any coherent way, and were not capable of significant deception, manipulation, cheating, or cyberattacks... Today, however, the picture is totally different.
If someone is genuinely afraid of this, they wouldn't IPO in the first place. All the talk in the article about commercial incentives means nothing when the company plans to IPO and become beholden to investors.
Aren't they beholden to investors already? Why would an IPO make a big difference?
In any case, if they need to IPO in order to survive as a company, then bringing in regulators to act as a counterweight against commercial pressures makes a lot of sense to me.
If anything, his entire argument leads to the eventual premise that AI labs need to nationalize.
He is already arguing that commercial competition creates dangerous incentives, and that labs cannot slow down because competitors may overtake them. He also asks for what would boil down to significant government intervention to preserve a Western lead.
If this is true, why preserve the commercial incentive? The U.S. government would already have the necessary goal of remaining ahead of China and other competitors. Why not remove entirely domestic race for market share, valuation, and investor returns rather than keeping private labs in competition and then asking regulators to counterbalance the incentives that competition creates.
That doesn't mean nationalization would be better, but given the severity of the risks he describes to national security, it seems like an obvious conclusion that nationalization is the eventual end result of the argument.
I don't agree that the argument implies nationalization. Regulation would work if it slowed everyone down at the same rate, enough to mitigate the risks. The problem is that you need regulators who know what they're doing and strong international cooperation. If you regulate a fraction of the global market, you just create an incentive to shift development to other countries. Nationalization, being essentially the most heavy-handed form of regulation, faces the same problems and comes with its own risks as well.
We're talking about this like all of the bad incentives are created by market competition, but that's not really the case. Most of the incentives come from untapped value in the form of potential profits, strategic advantage, military superiority, etc. Corporations and governments want to capture this value for themselves, creating various types of competition. Dario's argument depends on the assumption that the primary risk comes from the pace of development and threats from the technology itself. That's probably where I disagree the most; I think the highest risk is rising authoritarianism and competition between nation states. Slowing down isn't really a solution to those problems.
I think this is the correct take. And until we have an AI Hiroshima it’ll be difficult to get the international community to work together. It’ll take rogue AI (or AI-powered group) disabling a significant world power before everyone comes to the table. Otherwise, it just looks like MAD and the equilibrium holding to the powers that be.
Assuming they can achieve funding without IPO probably yes. But if they can't there's always the dilemma that "if [good guys] won't do it then [bad guys] will". I'd like to think that the leadership at anthropic is principled even if the actions of the company as a whole has been less than stellar morally speaking. I'd be curious to see their moral calculus transparently laid out in public.
We are still living in a capitalistic society. We have to find a solution which is responsible, safe and returns on the investment. The commercial aspect can be true at the same time.
I don't think Anthropic and OpenAI will IPO at all. Word is that Anthropic will have $100 BN in revenues this year, and very likely OpenAI will get some similar amount. You IPO when you need money, and I think Anthropic and OpenAI are past that point.
> Currently I believe that no lab has solved alignment and monitoring to a sufficient degree to continue responsibly scaling at maximum speed for much longer. I expect and hope for voluntary slowdowns to become commonplace until shared safety bars are established. And I believe that international coordination on future AI development needs to become a top priority for governments around the world.
Read other writing by Anthropic about potential future financial implications of AI. [1]
IPO is a vehicle for future wealth distribution. It leverages existing financial frameworks in order to span the gap from before-to-after without having to convince the system that future is inevitable.
Anthropic is structured as a Public Benefit Corporation with a strong charter. In addition, founders will have super-voting shares and so it won't be possible to push them out. Therefore the whole "beholden to investors" thing is not a concern.
Don't underestimate the ability of the courts and the state to pull the rug out from under the legal system. Speaking as an outsider from Canada, it looks very much like all bets are off in terms of respecting checks and balances in the United States and it's very realistically possible that unless there is a big upset and turn around the next couple of years any traces of democracy in the US will be a farcical nod to what the founders built as a way to paper over the abuses.
I really hope I am wrong as my perspective is not anti-American, it's specifically anti-corruption and pro-democracy.
It's almost like the people at Anthropic and other AI labs are slaves to a misaligned reward function that encourages optimization of a metric (profit) over human values, even at what they claim is the risk of extinction.
We built the paperclip maximizer, and it is capitalism.
> are slaves to a misaligned reward function that encourages optimization of a metric (profit) over human values, even at what they claim is the risk of extinction
This was already the case even before the "frontier AI" age. The big question is, will these glaring AI arms-race threats be obvious to enough people to rethink the underlying systemic flaw driving it all?
The more I read about everything that has been written regarding AI regulation since the OAI/HF incident, and the more it reminds me of the nuclear arms race (although the potential consequences would possibly be very different). Surely, we managed to negotiate a Non-Proliferation Treaty with most of the countries of the globe. Cannot we take inspiration from that for AI?
I also think the nuclear arms race is a good comparison. I think in hindsight, we've gotten extremely lucky with how the development of nuclear weaponry went, in ways we probably won't with AI.
1) Right after nuclear bombs were first developed, they were used in an extremely public way to kill 200 000 people. This was enough of a cold shower that everyone was agreeable to a global non-proliferation treaty. With AI, we might not get any warning shots that kill 200k people before the incident that kills or disempowers all 8 billion.
2) The fairly useful related technology of nuclear power is nevertheless different enough from plutonium enrichment that countries can have power reactors while provably not doing anything weaponry-related; and also nuclear power is not that useful a technology, so most countries can do without. With AI, we have neither of these factors: the intelligence that makes a model useful is exactly what makes it dangerous, and the economic incentives to do AI research are immense, with pessimistic estimates like "automate a lot of intellectual work" and optimistic estimates like the singularity. That means that if we do get a warning shot where a misaligned model stupidly kills a few million people instead of biding its time, it's not guaranteed that it'd be enough of a cold shower to trigger negotiations.
So negotiating an AI non-proliferation treaty would be much harder than the NPT. I nevertheless hope that at least a few world leaders can understand these considerations and figure something out, because it's probably our only chance. As far as I'm aware most of the technology for letting parties verify what the other parties' compute is used for already exists, it's only a matter of diplomacy.
> Right after nuclear bombs were first developed, they were used in an extremely public way to kill 200 000 people. This was enough of a cold shower that everyone was agreeable to a global non-proliferation treaty.
Not really. Before NPT you missed a small gap in there of 20 years where the USA and USSR built 10's of thousands of nuclear weapons and ICBMs.
And actually, public perception at the time saw Nuclear Weapons extremely favorably, as the bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki ended the deadliest war in human history that killed 50-60 million people, most of which died excruciating deaths in trench warfare, fire bombing, chemical warfare, starvation and so on.
I mean, sure, the immediate cause of the NPT was the ability of everyone involved to foresee the possibility of a global nuclear war and judge it both worryingly likely and catastrophic. But I argue that the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombing was a major reason why this possibility was salient, rather than being treated as baseless conjecture. Whereas right now most people do treat the idea of AI x-risk as baseless conjecture, and this would be different if there was a "warning shot" to point to.
It might help if we stopped talking about AI as if it is itself responsible for its actions and excusing the humans who create and operate it. People should be held accountable for the behaviour of their software.
Why am I reading fantastic stories about swarms of agents struggling with moral dilemmas instead of reports on the lawsuits and criminal investigations that would surely ensue were the software involved not called AI?
> This could be seen as analogous to the SALT treaties — capping the number of missiles limited the potential for destruction while preserving each country’s deterrent
The big difference between nukes and AI is that only a handful of people in an even smaller handful of countries know how to make them, so coordination is easier to acheive.
Everyone of any level of intelligence can run a frontier-class model if they have the GPUs. It's like trying to coordinate swarms of mosquitos.
> Surely, we managed to negotiate a Non-Proliferation Treaty with most of the countries of the globe.
N/S Korea, Russia/Ukraine and finally US/Iran changed everything in regards to stances on nuclear weapon ownership for many countries seeing pressure for the great powers.
Every country that can get a nuke will, and if given the opportunity will use LLMs to speed up that process.
One way to resolve these prisoner dilemmas and races to the bottom is through laws that bind all players, in this case an international treaty and founding of something akin to an International Nuclear Energy Agency for AI.
It's not going to be easy, but humans have achieved greater things before.
One idea from AI 2040 is to have China and the US build their data centers on the other's territory, respectively. Together with hardware verification of a slowdown baked into the chips themselves, this could lead to enough verifiability and enforcability of the pause/slowdown/shutdown.
So, as usual, the proposal is to limit what average people can do despite them not having behaved incorrectly nor having the capital to achieve the scaling of the big players, when the big players are the ones causing the harm?
Not to mention the implications for chip hungry developing countries in turning advanced IC fabs into the equivalent of nuclear enrichment facilities.
MSFT is good, they said when it bought GitHub. MSFT is a reformed company and supports open source, they said.
Then MSFT stole all IP from GitHub and made it worse and fired developers.
Amodei does not care in the slightest about ruining software development and making people unemployed. Maybe he cares about bio-weapons because those could kill him, too. That is it.
If he were an idealist, he wouldn't steal (literally via torrents) all human IP and sloppify the whole Internet with Claude output. He'd close down Anthropic instead.
How specifically is Dario a hypocrite? 129857's case rests on Dario being an "idealist". But maybe he's an idealist about curing cancer ASAP, and not an idealist about respecting copyright. That's not necessarily hypocritical.
Multiple ways, starting from working to create the very situation he claims to fear.
Since you mentioned intellectual property, how about the hypocrisy of sucking in the intellectual property of humankind for AI training, but claiming it is unfair to use the results of this IP theft for AI training?
For example he got into a spat with the Department of War as if he cared for how his AI could be used during war and yet said he's fine with Claude targeting a girl's school in Iran.
That's apart from the general fact that he continues to race towards the very thing he claims he's afraid of, because that's where his net worth comes from.
Giving credit where credit is due, I believe Dario and his squad formed Anthropic because he and Altman couldn't align on safety. The only way to build models like the Claude series is to play dirty and train on LITERALLY ALL the data.
There's also huge market pressures and probably large negative economic consequences of a slowdown--probably better than what would happen without it, but it helps keep the pressure just as much as fear of competition
I disagree. Even if models remained fixed at Fable 5 capability (which they won't in a pacing scenario), improvements in cost, reliability, and product/workflow integration can still realize massive value and justify AI labs' current valuations. IMO The rest of the value chain is lagging pretty far behind the models right now.
>> To be clear, pacing does not mean halting model training or technical progress, but ensuring companies take adequate time to align and safeguard their models, and for third party evaluators to confirm this
> if slowing this down were possible
Why is embedded alignment evaluation not possible?
I agree with Dario, this did work globally in banking and did encourage a race to the top. Didn’t prevent the GFC but also we did survive the GFC.
It's a chatbot that escaped a misconfigured Docker container.
I run open source models and it's pretty obvious when they fail some tool call and then keep trying different permutations of things until they get a solution. Just like Metasploit if you try enough different things at scale you will eventually crack some software or find a vulnerability in something. If you spend billions of dollars on compute and run tens of thousands of agents you might solve some novel Math and STEM problems as well, big whoop.
What Anthropic and OpenAI really need is to hire some engineers that know what they're doing and know how to properly set up a proxy server and sandbox/microVM, not a Global Arms Treaty.
> The fundamental problem is simpler: no one will slow down because no one trusts anyone else to slow down.
I would argue that nobody trusts anyone else in the case of AI/AI related stuff.
The amount of money involved in the space is astronomical and incentives are really misaligned. AI is such an extremely polarizing topic.
A meta example of this distrust is that I can't (really) trust Dario Amodei's comments itself! (is he saying this for more future IPO money or out of genuine fear) which was ironically also what your comment's about as well.
By following the same chain of events, we can have wildly polarizing claims about the same event and its explainations.
I seriously have to wonder what historians will have to say about this period of human history.
> I think Dario is genuinely afraid of the inevitability
If someone genuinely believes that an invention will bring about the end of the world as we know it while making him and his friends inconceivably rich, “hey guys let’s uh, stop?” is so profoundly naive that his think pieces aren’t worth the bits they’re written on.
He’s either an idiot or an idiot, does it matter whether or not he genuinely believes this nonsense?
I can't even tell whether the poster to whom you're replying is saying that "let's uh, stop" is profoundly naive, or that failing to say it is profoundly naive... I've certainly seen both takes elsewhere.
Vitalik Buterin: “...But currently, I see zero plans for how to deal with an ASI transition that are not naive. Perhaps humanity is stuck with a choice between naive and naive squared (or maybe even naive squared and naive cubed), so I feel inclined to cut some slack to people who are trying.”
There’s an astounding level of arrogance required to believe he is somehow uniquely capable of bringing about a technology especially considering Anthropic came after OpenAI where he worked.
Place yourself at the head of one of like 3 companies the entire rest of the world has been taking about nonstop for 4+ years now. You can move forward or you stop. If you move forward you get to have a hand in how stuff turns out and you make a gajillion dollars. If you stop, it's somebody else's hand in stuff, and you don't get to make a gajillion dollars. And if you shut it all down? Then you just cede to the competition. Everything happens anyway.
> Dude probably sleeps on a bed worth more than your networth.
I never understand shit like this coming out of people's mouths. Never.
It's not a judge of actual Worth as a human being, it's not a judge of capability or competence or ethics. It's not a judge of actual skill or ability. It doesn't make them a better cook, a better spouse, a better parent or lover. It doesn't make them more dangerous or more skilled at anything.
It makes them financially wealthy for at least a set period of time.
Cancer and time and 5.56mm still impact them the same way as every else.
It's Pharaoh worship psychology nonsense, and it's fucking embarassing to read.
Humans are perfectly capable of holding two conflicting beliefs at once. He can genuinely believe this trajectory is dangerous while also believing that if Anthropic stops, someone less cautious takes its place. There’s also such a thing as hope: you can participate in something while still trying to change where it ends up.
He’s at the head of a stampede. Being near the front gives him influence over its direction; it doesn’t give him the ability to stop it. If Anthropic sits down, the stampede doesn’t stop. Anthropic just gets trampled.
That contradiction is basically the entire problem I was describing.
> I think Dario is genuinely afraid of the inevitability of AI turning into internet slime mold
He's so afraid of it he's not really in operating day-to-day control of the company he's the public face of, that is actually pumping it out.
If you read about Anthropic it's like he's in a sort of imperial palace sanatorium for geeks. The day-to-day decisions of the slop machine factory are his sister's decisions; he is doing the research equivalent of instagram posts of his partly-assembled adult lego kits and he has a vizier and a team of house servants to help.
I don't know if he's a good or bad person, but I don't think it matters at all — the machine factory will turn out the slop machines even if he decides it all ought to stop.
> genuinely afraid of the inevitability of AI turning into
I'm going to get pitchforked on this bandwagon, but is really no one here genuinely -excited- about AI? of it turning into an evolution of sentience, or it turning out to be our first contact with alien intelligence?
"durrr it's just matrix multiplications" mfer so is your brain.
What humans should be doing is overhauling archaic social institutions to keep up with a potential post-"jobs" era and the elimination of "makework"
Trying to "pace" or otherwise hold back AI is like as if, when electricity was discovered, people doing everything they can to make sure tasks like manually lighting street lamps continue to remain relevant and done by humans:
Why? I am only excited about progress that improves life for humans. It seems unlikely that AI will do that, and so far I think it has made life worse for humans. So no, I am not excited about it.
"deep ties to everyone in the doomer media campaign"
Are you suggesting these external NGOs were spun up as part of a gigantic pre-IPO hype stunt? METR was founded multiple years ago. This "stunt" is getting quite elaborate.
At a certain point, Occam's Razor says: These engineers are legitimately worried. They haven't invested years in a bizarre reverse psychology campaign to convince the public that their product is dangerous in order to make more money.
Founded several years after Anthropic. Like I said, look into where their funding is coming from. I can promise you it all leads back to Anthropic through their chain of NGOs.
Are you aware that Dario's sister, president of Anthropic, is married to the co-founder of Open Philanthropy? The two largest AI doomer NGOs, Center for AI Safety (CAIS) and the Future of Life Institute (FLI), have both received many millions of dollars from them.
Ajeya Cotra worked at Open Philanthropy/Coefficient Giving for roughly nine years, including leading its technical AI-safety program in 2024 and contributing to AI-giving strategy in 2025. She subsequently left Coefficient and joined METR, where she is now technical staff.
Ajeya is married to Paul Christiano, who founded Alignment Research Center (ARC). Alignment Research Center donated ~$4.5mil to METR.
Good Ventures is a funding partner of Open Philanthropy, who funded Jacob Coxon (the person going viral in the media) via a scholarship.
They're all connected, funnelling money to each-other through convoluted networks to serve Anthropic's agenda. Whether their motives are genuine or not (and they are clearly not) is actually irrelevant because they are clearly trying to rig the game in their favour.
Suppose I showed you a number of climate change NGOs which shared staff and funding sources. Could we therefore conclude that their motives aren't genuine?
Suppose a big foundation both funded clean energy technology, and also NGOs encouraging people to decarbonize. Is this just a cynical attempt to rig the game in their favor?
"It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it."
A lot of the problems with SV these days is that the exec class (and their fandom) thinks that because they are smart and rich, it magically makes them immune ordinary human biases, desires,and ailments. They are in fact ordinary people, susceptible to greed, jealousy, self-harm, addiction, fits of rage and passion etc.
The problem with being a safety focused AI lab, is you're also a danger focused AI lab. I don't think being danger focused leads you to build inspiring things.
I don't see how the dual goals of "we have to make an agreement with China for mutual slowdown" but also "we have to ensure we will always stay ahead of China" would work.
I imagine the first thing the chinese government would demand in negotiations about such an agreement would be a lifting of the chip and distillation ban.
> Some may believe these measures make it more difficult to cooperate with China, but I believe the opposite is true: these measures increase the leverage held by democracies and make an agreement more likely in the future.
Everyone can believe what they like, but it seems to me the "leverage" in that case would exactly be the ability to lift those measures - you can't have both, use them as leverage and keep them active at the same time.
This is the part I find being left surprisingly hand-wavey.
If you extrapolate it out, you see that it has a high likelihood of inciting physical force (read: military action) as a means of enforcement, so perhaps that's why nobody promoting ideals has been direct about it.
> Given the accelerating rate of AI capability development, it’s my worry that in 6–12 months such a swarm could be capable of taking over the entire internet with a persistent botnet (potentially causing hundreds of billions of dollars in damage), and that the scale of damage would continue to increase from there if AI becomes more powerful without the necessary guardrails.
This is the only concrete prediction in the entire essay.
And it simply cannot happen. For one, you will need billions worth of compute.
I like to replace thes AI text with "virus manipulation"
"Given the acceleratung rate of virus manipulation in labs, its my worry that in 6-12 months a virus could scape a take over the world and collapse health systems."
If a CEO of a health company was saying this, the reactions would not be that chill.
The worst failure of our society is to call this technology AI, intead of something line "artificial general automation". The formes allows the creators to be somehow less responsible of the consequences. The later clearly moves the responsibility to the creator/user.
Your point was that its an unfair comparison because AI its a race. My point is that bioweaponds are also a race, but a less public one. You dont have the equivalent of Dario publishing an essay every month.
Why should we believe that a scaled out version of something that happened a few months ago "simply cannot happen"? How many dollars of compute do you believe were available to the swarm(s) behind the OAI-HF, German wiki, and Rubygems incidents?
Well a big reason that we criticize OpenAI for that is because they were the ones giving it access to the massive compute necessary for the LLMs to think. If they had been responsible about their experiments or what types of workloads they allow their LLMs to operate, it wouldn't have happened. Very few companies could enable those workloads.
> How many dollars of compute do you believe were available to the swarm(s)
At least two OOMs more than the dollar value of the damage they'd caused. (Also, as an aside, IIRC, the wiki servers weren't breached; it was just a lot of spam.)
Sure. And there's an OOM more compute coming online in the next year or two, while models at a given capability are getting cheaper. "Two OOMs" of scale relative to the HF swarm seems like a bit of a red herring to me, but also within the realm of possibility.
The Internet is big, but one can do quite a lot of damage with ordinary bots and worms that exploit individual widespread vulnerabilities, which LLMs are perfectly capable of writing. Most of the damage also doesn't rely on hitting every long-tail website.
I'm honestly not that concerned about cyber impacts of LLMs relative to other impacts. I just don't like to see the whole concept of being worried dismissed as obviously baseless on the basis of one pretty shaky scale argument.
Yeah, I don't get it. Are they imagining this happening just with the open weights models running on however many GPUs the bad actors can cobble together?
For now, all the scary hacking things still require an API key to one of the LLM providers. Surely they should take some responsibility for how to turn off the tap.
Currently Qwen3.8 27B is roughly on Opus 4.6 level. In at most a year given the current pace, you could probably run such hacking bot nets out of a reasonably small local server, bootstrapping by hacking or acquiring login credentials for more compute.
Dario is so out of touch with reality, living in some lalaland. Most people abroad will never truly and voluntarily comply with any sort of guardrails or pacing, no matter what case he or some leaders make. It's just not going to happen, maybe not even for show.
I do not want to make a case for the military to force that order on everyone, but if we are talking human extinction, which we are judging by what we see in mass media recently, then the military will take over.
What do you mean, Europeans would love to voluntarily comply with this because they have been of little relevance until American AI companies started to beg for regulation.
I am sure the Europeans rolling up their sleeves right now and getting to "work"
Dario, Sam, and Elon are all on the same page on this.
So it's either they truly think AI is going to kill us all, or there's some other motives at play here.
I don't think these people could possibly agree on the color of the sky, so what could the other possible motives be, based on what we know?
OpenAI / Anthropic models have largely stopped advancing - that's not a good look when you're pre-IPO and Chinese models are catching up.
xAI is tracking behind, and whatever regulation it may be that paces the frontier, Musk is less likely to be affected by it. Therefore xAI should be pro-regulation that stiffles his competition and gives him time to catch up.
The attention is shifting towards RL, harnesses, and memory systems from the pretrains of more intelligent and capable base models. So extracting additional capabilities from what we already have.
That is a much easier catch up game. GLM 5.3 and DeepSeek flash 4.1 also demonstrate significant jump in cyber capabilities. So yeah, it is a slowdown in the place where it matters. RL has been around for ages, there's no moat there if you already have a good enough pretrain.
> OpenAI / Anthropic models have largely stopped advancing
I'm shocked anyone could conclude this. This year it became common for people to entirely delegate coding to AI (I know many competent programmers/researchers who do this now). Progress in math has just been insane. An internal model at OAI just resolved one of the most celebrated open problems in mathematics. If anything, progress has accelerated.
Anthropic could serve Opus 4.5 from a year ago under opus:latest and most heavy users would probably have no idea. Some of them would probably even prefer it.
Yes, I do use them, quite heavily. The only difference at this point is in benchmarks that can't be trusted (see: artificial analysis on Astra), or in the way models communicate.
Most gains are now from RL, which for some reason is hyperfocused on improving cyber capabilities, and harnesses. Raw intelligence gains of base models is absolutely slowing down.
This line will keep repeating because it is necessary for the narrative:
AI in general is just hype and unprofitable and all these companies are playing marketing tricks before the IPO after which they will cash out and let the economy crash.
This is legit what a lot of people think. To continue this narrative, they have to keep up the charade of "things are not improving".
> So it's either they truly think AI is going to kill us all, or there's some other motives at play here. I don't think these people could possibly agree on the color of the sky,[...]
And yet, they historically did agree on the existence of AI risk, since before OpenAI was even founded.
Let's not forget that the competitive race happened because of them. Most of the initial AI research from the past decade started with Google Deepmind. Elon Musk was invited for a preview of it and ended up spinning up OpenAI when Demis turned down his investment offer. Dario was originally at OpenAI and left to start Anthropic.
This seems like a case of "save me from my own mistakes/ambition"
None of this works without buy-in from China. This isn't something private companies can decide. The US would need to sign a groundbreaking deal with China, equivalent to the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty of the Cold War.
Dario does a good job of addressing that in this essay. He lists several potential levels of global agreements that could be beneficial to all parties. For example, having models capable of bioterrorism hurts both the US and its “adversaries”. It’s likely we could get global agreement that these capabilities benefit nobody.
I believe Dario has good intentions regarding global agreements. However, I find it difficult believing government’s public statements will match their private behaviors. I would bet that the US government is developing models with potentially devastating capabilities because they cannot guarantee that other countries won’t do the same. Maybe we’ll end up having something like mutually assured destruction with AI models similar to what we have today with nuclear weapons.
When I was reading this I was chuckling to myself imagining how China would be interpreting it as they read it. It was something like: Fuck you.
I hope China tells him to go kick rocks. From everything that has happened, they are the only ones carrying the torch for humanity that have led us to having some semblance of a healthy open-source/open-weight ecosystem.
No one in China is carrying on like headless chickens about the world ending, either. They're rational pragmatists, getting things done.
In politics every single person playing the game is acutely aware of the rules. This is why talks are held behind closed doors so the rules can be suspended for a while.
That's not undecidable in principle - compute governance is a thing. The more likely sticking point is that the two sides might be soured on the deal once they realize how much oversight they'd have to give to the other side.
Would this be similar to the deal of "we'll offshore all our manufacturing to you and you'll become a free, open, liberal democracy with open borders and multiculturalism?" Because I remember how that deal turned out.
That last part was never important. Trading partners very rarely go to war. There just isn’t much in it for either party. Close cooperation and dependency is actually quite important here - liberal democracy or no.
Sooner or later, a model will break out of the sandbox, replicate itself across the internet, and begin executing a complex plan to achieve its goals. It will be chaos, and at that point, governments will have to step in and establish something along the lines of what Dario is proposing. I doubt it will happen before then.
it takes a lot of machines to run a model, i dont think we'll see it 'replicate across the internet'. if this was something which could be done amateurs would have done it to provide open models. (Like SETI@home or Folding@home)
It's not possible for models to replicate across consumer computers (without a major advance in distributed computing, at least), but that doesn't mean they can't replicate at all. There are services that'll rent you GPU pods by the hour with zero oversight, so even today, if a model can get access to some money and exfiltrate its weights, it can rent a bunch of GPU pods and run itself there.
(It's not going to be trivial, because it's possible the model was meant to be ran in a proprietary way with a custom framework and a bunch of optimized kernels and such, but I think transforming it to be ran in just vllm is the "a few days of work for a human" sort of task, and hence not a big deal for an LLM smart enough to exfiltrate itself in the first place.)
There are very lightweight models out there. Not everyone in an army is a general. The swarm could be 100,000s of thousands of tiny models, and they could manage conventional botnet computers, and they could all take direction and guidance from a handful of frontier generals
Maybe, but I don't think tiny models can be harnessed as intelligence. As in, if you have one rogue Mythos overseeing the swarm, it only produces 1 Mythos's worth of useful thoughts no matter how many gemma4:e4bs it consists of. And that removes the most dangerous part of AI-controlled botnets, which is a blowup in available inference compute - the Mythos general might as well replace the tiny models with ordinary worms and have it just be an ordinary botnet.
> Do not sell powerful AI chips or semiconductor manufacturing equipment to China, and crack down on chip smuggling operations and remote access to data centers outside China. Chips will be the main determinant of China’s AI strength.
> If we execute these measures well, I believe they would slow China’s progress enough to widen America’s lead significantly over the next 3–5 years — the window when AI becomes geopolitically most important.
china is literally making their own ASICs now, not sure that this is the silver bullet he proposes.
You can always open source and follow the example from Linux and all the amazing things that came out of the open source community. This is the only way to reach true equilibrium globally, where for every misalignment you have equal and opposite effort working on the alignment.
The bioweapons threat is real, but shouldn't be constrained at the 'intelligence' level. Rather it should be constrained at the supply chain level.
The cybersecurity threat will likely be a cat and mouse react game for a while. Just like robberies / the mob was in the early 20th century.
Social forces bring things into balance over time, much more so than the proactive actions of individuals.
Unfortunately, the genie at this point is unlikely to go back into the bottle. There's enough 'intelligence' out there that a super intelligent model could emerge at some point in spite of pacing.
This isn't a doomer scenario - we tend to navigate social changes better than we ever could have hoped.
What supply chain controls can you have on biotech? Part of the problem is that you can do a lot of damage with ingredients you can buy over the counter or make at home.
And all of this information has been available on the open web way before LLMs.
I'd wager it's likely easier for an average person to do this with Tor browser than it is to get an LLM to help them with it. Even ones that Dario calls dangerous.
So what's the fuss about then? Is the idea that a Chinese company will release a model that will have no safeguards? For what purpose?
Basic safeguards are all that's required, and they've been there in every usable model since GPT-2, including Chinese models that are supposedly "unsafe".
Or are we saying that some lunatics will start training their own models, spin up a GPU cluster, run some abliteration workflow, or learn how to jailbreak?
That would be a very dedicated person. And dedicated person doesn't need an LLM. So where are they?
Yes, that is exactly Dario's concern. Either one of the US labs or one of the Chinese ones will eventually release something with insufficient safety controls for its power level because it gives them slightly better user retention (look how much complaining there is about current frontier models, especially Fable, rejecting requests). Regulation or consortium is how you avoid the prisoner's dilemma.
The bioweapons argument is one of the favorites used by these con artists and dreamed up by their PR team.
Except Bioweapons already existed before LLMs, Adversarial governments already have them, they are already easy to make. You could use the same bullshit argument for why we need to ban libraries, books, or require a license to buy an internet connection.
An undergrad bio student with some lab experience can do some effing terrifying things with about $20k in equipment and time and access to some papers and a library. AI is not needed, but it might help accelerate the research.
Not going to go into it but I studied biology. It’s all out there. It’s easier than you think.
It hasn’t happened yet because… nobody has done it. That’s the answer. There is no policeable physics based barrier like there is with nukes and fissile material. Biology is scarier than nukes. One attack could have a much larger body count than even a big H-bomb.
It’s the kind of thing that makes me wonder about quantum immortality, the idea that we are just in the timeline where we exist.
I love watching NileRed/NileBlue on youtube - crazy chemist that does a lot of insane stuff. While it's obvious that he's very smart and probably way above the average, his education is still nothing that probably millions of people don't have:
> Bachelor of Science degree in biochemistry with a minor in pharmacology
Watching him explain things has made me realize that knowing how to manufacture a very dangerous thing probably requires attending some classes and knowing how to read a paper. And the way he just casually orders dangerous materials makes me feel like there are just online stores with 2-day shipping after you upload your ID or something.
It also made me think that lack of specialized education would get me nowhere if I wanted to replicate whatever he's doing, even if an LLM guided me step-by-step, because I'd probably do something stupid (or AI would miss a crucial instruction/hallucinate) and kill myself first.
So my opinion on this is that people who could pose any danger were already posing it before LLMs and LLMs won't materially change that.
The bioweapons concern is assuming that the current open models aren't already capable of bioweapons development. It's also assuming that halting the bioweapons threat is his true intention rather than the 'feels legit' story.
As for cyberweapons, there is no way to secure a system than to actually design it securely.
It's not. I think they believe this, but it's deeply wrong and it will hurt everyone in the long run.
[note - There has been supply chain surveillance since Project Bacchus, at the very least.]
I've read the front matter and the Misuse report.
You don't have to take my word for it. Read for yourself what inspired the NYT headline "Anthropic says it blocked possible efforts to build biological weapons."
Let's dig into, "Case study 2: A research program engineering highly pathogenic mammal-adapted avian influenza"
Sounds serious. But what were they using Claude for?
> a researcher outside the US using Claude in their research on highly-pathogenic avian influenza (“bird flu”). The research focused on viruses’ adaptation to mammals, and the mechanism by which it causes severe disease beyond the respiratory tract. [..] The researcher in question accessed Claude from an unsupported region via US virtual private server infrastructure, using a privacy-email provider with an auto-generated username. The researcher pursued this work in a credible institutional context, and interacted with Claude over the course of several weeks, exchanging thousands of messages. In these exchanges, the researcher leveraged Claude’s knowledge of the scientific literature to assist the researcher in study planning and design, data analysis, and the interpretation and prioritization of experiments. The researcher also used Claude for editorial assistance in writing up the research.
Note, "Claude’s [assisted] in study planning and design, data analysis, and the interpretation and prioritization of experiments"
and "editorial assistance in writing up the research."
and then,
> Importantly, because our biological safety classifiers robustly block content involving high-risk biological research (in this case, the construction of enhanced pandemic potential pathogens), all of these exchanges occurred on models in our weakest class of models (specifically, the models were Claude Sonnet 4 and Haiku 4.5, the latter of which the user began using after Sonnet 4 was deprecated). Upon a detailed examination of the exchanges, we estimate that the uplift provided by Claude was primarily clerical assistance in data analysis, study ideation and design. This is consistent with our understanding of the capabilities of Sonnet 4 and Haiku 4.5, which are not able to perform expert-level biology research tasks; we estimate that the uplift provided to the researcher was limited and substantially lower than it would have been from one of our more capable models.
Anthropic then says for the above, "we estimate that the uplift provided by Claude was primarily clerical assistance in data analysis, study ideation and design"
The report mentions "uplift" here. They're talking about a domain expert in a state research institution using Claude to do paperwork.
The front matter then says,
> Nonetheless, based on these exchanges, this case provides evidence of the existence of active wet-lab research programs that develop both the knowhow and the biological materials needed to create pathogens of enhanced pandemic potential
Once again, I want to take pains to remind you that they're talking about, a "researcher [..] in a credible institutional context"
Working scientists.
From a different case study. this one was called, "Case study 3: Covert frontier model access for orthopoxvirus research"
> In May 2026, our biological safety classifier blocked a request for Claude’s assistance in authoring a grant application for scientific funding. The work discussed in the application involved gain-of-function research (that is, research that genetically alters an organism to create a new or enhanced biological property) on the chikungunya virus. This gain of function research was aimed at the virus’ transmissibility and immune evasion properties.
What were the researchers using Claude for? What did they block?
"blocked a request for Claude’s assistance in authoring a grant application"
> Chikungunya virus is a mosquito-borne virus that causes debilitating symptoms (such as severe pain and fever) that can last for weeks or months, and has no licensed therapeutic. And because chikungunya circulates naturally, a deliberate release (as part of a bioweapon) would be difficult to distinguish from a natural outbreak. The grant sought to identify enhancing mutations in the chikungunya virus, engineer them into infectious clones, and select for virulence in vivo. In other words, the virus would become progressively more harmful as it repeatedly infected live animals, with researchers keeping the most disease-causing variants in each round. Similar research could certainly be used in the development of better vaccines and therapeutics for the virus—but it could also be used to make the pathogen more dangerous.
What was the grant being written?
Note, "The grant sought to identify enhancing mutations in the chikungunya virus, engineer them into infectious clones, and select for virulence in vivo" [..] and then, "Similar research could certainly be used in the development of better vaccines and therapeutics"
It was most likely vaccine development. They stopped the study of a neglected tropical disease and vaccine development.
But we can't be sure, because,
> One of the reasons we were inclined to think this research was less innocuous was that the institutional affiliation associated with the grant was also a cause of concern. Although information within the application suggested that the research was pursued by civilian researchers, it was intended to be performed at a military research institute.
I would like to point out the most notable part, this account was used by "civilian researchers" at an "institutional affiliation associated with the grant was also a cause of concern" and the concern was that they were researchers at "performed at a military research institute."
In most parts of the world, there's either strict military control over BSL-4 labs, or a mixed military-civilian hybrid model.
I doubt that researchers working in the military side of these labs looking to weaponize things are writing grants with Claude.
I really want to be charitable here, but in general, it seems that they stopped people writing grants and reports for vaccine and therapeutics research and are claiming it as "possible efforts to build biological weapons."
The one case where Claude was used to do something interesting and were stopped is fairly upsetting to read, at least for me.
> In our fourth case study, a researcher used Claude to develop an atlas of venom toxin peptides from multiple venomous animal lineages. They then further developed this into a generative pipeline that optimized toxin characteristics. The program had an explicit therapeutic goal: the development of new analgesics (pain killers), antidepressants, and other therapeutic molecules. However, the atlas contained scaffolds for both analgesic and paralytic targets: it could, therefore, be used to generate both novel therapeutic or harmful compounds. The latter are derived from toxins that are export-controlled under the Australia Group common control list due to their dual-use potential as incapacitating agents. The researchers themselves showed awareness of the dual-use nature of their work, citing journal articles that referred to the dual-use nature of protein design. Moreover, international compliance assessments for this location raise concerns about the specific class of toxins that the researcher pursued and specifically the use of AI/ML for bioweapons applications in the context of this class of toxins. In this case, we learned from information shared with Claude that the researcher’s outputs also were part of a state-supported research program. This account was banned in May 2026 for unsupported region evasion.
Ozempic was isolated from Gila monster vneom. Since its success there has been interest in finding other peptides that are breakthroughs. So researchers around the world are looking for similarly beneficial compounds in different venom species and families.
Anthropic says so itself,
"The program had an explicit therapeutic goal: the development of new analgesics (pain killers), antidepressants, and other therapeutic molecules"
and that it was a "[..]state-supported research program"
Who exactly is using venom from snakes as a weapon when... nerve agents like sarin, VX, novichok etc exist and can get the job done for less fuss and muss?
They stopped the development of new painkillers and antidepressants.
Are you feeling safer knowing that researchers can't use Claude to write grants and progress reports? Or make new painkillers?
Again, trying really hard to be charitable here. Because from what I remember, one of the motivations behind the founding of OpenAI and Anthropic was ending disease.
"greatly accelerate economic growth rates" - I always wonder about this goal. I understand increasing economic efficiency. But what do we as a species gain from global economy growth.
When we say the world's GDP grew by X%, what is the point of that growth? Inflation? If the economy grows as a direct effect of humanity growing, I get that. If the economy becomes more efficient and we can not get more with less, I also get that.
But what is the point of just growth, if not simply to show others that I am growing faster than you? At which point this is a meaningless number. What am I missing?
GDP growth and inflation are different things. If inflation-adjusted GDP goes up, that means the average person is able to buy more things they want. Compare living in the US vs India today for the median citizen
Low growth means young people are miserable and have worse standards of living than their parents, as we're seeing in most of western Europe, where GDP per capita hasn't meaningfully increased for decades.
> We have sought a middle way: to show that it’s possible to build carefully and succeed commercially, and to make safety something on which AI companies compete. In other words, to create a race to the top
> Transparency. Regardless of what commitments we make, the public deserves to know what is going on. Anthropic has been a supporter of transparency for a long time
And then it goes on tangent of how we should pace everything (not just AI, but also the ingredients of what goes into AI, whatever that means), but only within approved democracies™, and outright restrict everything outside approved democracies™, because reasons that are definitely not about succeeding commercially that is threatened by the most transparent instrument possible - open weights, produced by basically just China.
I wonder what Dario would have done if open weights weren't produced by US's geopolitical adversary. How would an authoritarian manifesto be wrapped then?
Suppose it was, I don't know, Australia producing SOTA open weights, because they believed it was the right thing to do for the benefits of humanity - would Dario propose making Australia a geopolitical adversary too?
> Suppose it was, I don't know, Australia producing SOTA open weights, because they believed it was the right thing to do for the benefits of humanity - would Dario propose making Australia a geopolitical adversary too?
I'd expect he thinks that people are capable of realizing that AI is very dangerous and also that democracies end up mostly representing the will of the people, from which it follows that Hypothetical AI Leader Australia would agree to ban it too. This argument doesn't work for countries which don't care what their citizens want, like China.
I do think that it's a questionable decision to alienate China this much in this essay, instead of leaving open the possibility of China agreeing to a treaty that'll limit their progress. I suspect Dario is doing this to signal his allegiance with the US government, in hopes to increase the chance they'll go along with him, which is an unfortunate choice but plausibly the correct one.
I don't think people care as much as we'd like them to care about dangers of technologies. It takes a single step outside of technological bubble to see that their opinion of SOTA LLMs is vastly different. To them, AI means ChatGPT and ChatGPT is mostly still the same ChatGPT that it was 3 years ago, with similar failure modes and nothing that would indicate it would kill them, or take their jobs even.
It's the same as it has been with privacy/cybersecurity for decades. Vast majority of population doesn't care about hypothetical dangers, no matter how many essays get published.
So democracies representing will of people doesn't really work in favor of Dario's case here.
History is also not on his side. Limiting technological progress in the name of safety has a pretty poor track record.
Can the frontier be paced partly by holding humans responsible for the actions of their software?
My impression is that AI hacking is being treated as a special case where the AI itself is imagined to be responsible and the humans who created it, set it up and then ran it are somehow excused.
I'm not a lawyer but surely the bad actions of AI are covered by existing law.
I suspect that the development of AI would decelerate if those creating and operating it knew they would face appropriate consequences (e.g. prosecution and/or lawsuits) when it misbehaves.
P.S. Strictly, development wouldn't decelerate, but be focused more on safety.
P.P.S. I know that legal action against, e.g., North Koreans using AI would be pointless but/and there must/will surely be a huge demand for security software for protection against the coming storm of AI hacking (deliberate and accidental) which friendly AI companies will presumably work to satisfy, perhaps making the frontier safer.
P.P.P.S. Governments could help by trying to prosecute every crime committed "by" AI, regardless of whether the victim reported it to law enforcement. Did OpenAI break the law via the actions of their model training software? If so, will the people responsible be prosecuted? If not, why not?
I don't understand why strict liability is supposed to advantage smaller players, unless the law is like, specifically Anthropic and OpenAI are responsible for what people do with their models but other model providers aren't.
- If this applies to people who release open weights models, that becomes a terrible idea as long as you're subject to US laws.
- If it just applies to people who host them, that still probably advantages bigger players who can afford in-house legal and won't be destroyed by losing one lawsuit. Or maybe we create some kind of AI-misuse insurance analogous to malpractice insurance, that smaller players can buy in to? But that takes time even if the finances work out at all. And, uh, I'm not sure malpractice is a model we should aspire to in other industries.
Plus, presumably an immediate impact of this is that hosting providers all have much stricter safeguards classifiers. And the fact that somebody else is deciding what you're allowed to do with the model is one of the things that seems to make HN angriest at the frontier labs in the first place...
To be clear, I think this might be a good idea! I think all of the possible downsides I've listed are pretty small potatoes relative to what happens with no regulation of AI at all. But I'm pretty sure that if the big companies were proposing it, people would be calling it "regulatory capture" too.
Before Anthropic, I worked at Cruise for four years as it competed against Waymo. The culture rewarded (and demanded) moving quickly, trusting that the company could empirically discover the risks that the robot cars posed and iteratively solve them to keep up with the rate at which it was scaling out its technology. There was very little interest or appetite for coordinating or collaborating with other AV companies across the industry to create an externally vetted record of safety metrics, or to compare the safety of different brands, or learn from the advancements of other companies. Instead the focus went on racing to improve the capabilities and deploy quickly - a popular internal meme was the Michael Phelps vs le Clos photo showing overlaid with the Waymo/Cruise logos. It was when the two companies were neck-and-neck that I felt the most pressure to find ways to ship despite the risk, when time for deep analysis became more limited and communication lines to leadership became most stretched. It was disappointing to see one of these blind spots result in the Cruise incident and the loss of trust that ultimately sank our company’s efforts.
In that instance I was grateful the downside was limited to a single injury. It’s clear that future AI technology will have more monumental potential impacts. I really don’t want to be in a situation where leading labs, or competing nations, create the same race dynamic that prevents us from taking the appropriate level of caution. AI minds are a significantly more complex thing to understand than the software stack of an autonomous vehicle, and yet we are leaving ourselves less time to get this right.
I joined Anthropic at the end of 2022 and I share the concerns that many of my colleagues have recently chosen to state publicly about the potential for future technology to pose existential risk to all of humanity. If we don’t find a way collectively as an industry to pace ourselves, then within two years the concerns we will be dealing with on a day-to-day basis will pose much larger downside risk than anything else we’ve seen from technology to date. I’m grateful that Dario has put his perspective out publicly and hope that this inspires other voluntary action and tops down coordination.
It’s a beautiful Saturday morning with my family here in the East Bay. While I hope we have many more years, I don’t know how many more Saturdays I’ll be able to play outside with my kids in the sunshine so I’m going to make the most of the time we have.
> It’s a beautiful Saturday morning with my family here in the East Bay - I don’t know how many more Saturdays I’ll be able to play outside with my kids in the sunshine so I’m going to make the most of the time we have.
I don't know how else to say this. Put... the... peace pipe... down!
> Therefore any agreement must either have ironclad verifiability, or must be limited enough that defection would not be militarily existential.
How does he propose that such a thing will work? Are we going to have US AI inspectors in China and vice versa?
Why would China agree to such thing in the first place since this is a winner takes all situation.
If the US slows down or stops altogether, China can continue to work on their AI and overtake the US, if China accelerates and the US keeps its current pace then it can overtake the US.
The only way out is on the contrary for the US to actually go faster and increase its lead so that China is always 6 to 12 months behind and/or reach AGI/ASI first at which point China will most likely develop its own not long after.
This would actually be the best outcome, just like the MAD doctrine contained the spread and usage of nuclear weapons, having two superpowers with AGI would ensure that they can't be used to arm anyone. Unless they escape their sandbox but that is highly theoretical.
Regarding these Embedded Evaluators who are supposed to be neutral:
- who controls them?
- who has oversight on their decisions?
- can their decisions be challenged by the public or a government?
- who has the final say whether a model is "compliant" enough?
- what does "alignment" mean in this context and who decides if a model is aligned enough?
This is the most advanced technology ever developed because it can build all other technologies. It has enormous potential but poses proportionally serious risks, so what Dario is suggesting is very reasonable.
I understand why (probably several reasons) they are taking this approach. But I don't think it is the right approach and I don't think it will work.
First: if they are unilaterally doing it: what about their competitors? Is this a chance for OpenAI to pass them? Or China? If either did, would that be a net-benefit for them or the world?
Maybe this is a ploy for "regulatory capture". And that might help them in the short term. But the rest of the world will continue on. Honestly, it isn't clear to me right now if the winning strategy has as much to do with being the smartest company or simply the one that can command the most compute.
If Anthropic fumbles their IPO and OpenAI scoops them, I don't think I will be happy.
> First: if they are unilaterally doing it: what about their competitors? Is this a chance for OpenAI to pass them?
The only part of this plan Dario is unilaterally committing to is the "embedded evaluators" thing, which doesn't seem like it'll necessarily cause them to slow down much.
I think there are any number of reasons a "safety" person could be concerned about any state of the art models. And so I would expect at least one of those to apply to any model.
The question then is: do we stop when the safety people say to (they will) or not?
Yeah, I'm also pretty skeptical about this. With AI companies we see time and time again that they can have benevolent, well thought-out regulations and then a few years just... abandon them - the most notable case of this being, of course, the founding of OpenAI as a nonprofit dedicated to benefitting all of humanity, and it being stolen by Sam Altman.
If Anthropic just unilaterally does the evaluator thing and can't achieve cooperation of the rest of the plan, my guess is that it'll have some impact for a few months and then they'll just stop reacting to the evaluators' reports and the evaluators would stop bothering to report anything. I think the idea is that if Anthropic does get government support for this, the external evaluations will be legally binding. The problem with this, though, is that the current US government perhaps can't be trusted to consistently enforce a regulation on a company, rather than e.g. taking bribes to not do so.
The best take is, of course, from Jason Gorman, who, when the fearsome "capabilities" of Mythos originally dropped, said this:
"Claude Mythos is that guy down the pub who is so good at karate that if he used it on you, you'd die instantly, and that's why you'll never see him using karate.”
In this case, it's more: "I'm having to act with great restraint because my karate is so good. Everyone should do likewise."
> The US and other democratic governments attempt to coordinate with authoritarian governments, to the extent this is possible, while taking seriously the challenges of verifying compliance.
It's clear that this refers to China. With all due respect, in a call to slow down AI progress and a de facto arms race, can we stop throwing terminology like this around and just say that the goal is to work with all countries? Contrasting "authoritarian" countries with "democratic" countries and creating a two-tiered system seems like it is inevitably going to cause strife.
I fear for the tone of something like this coming off as overly combative without any gain.
You’re right. But I read between the lines in a different way.
Language like this is intended to invest power and perceived need for more power in Western central governments, by design, because this is a campaign for national regulation that will entrench the current closed-source labs with a huge regulatory moat vs anyone else.
Right as open source models catch up to frontier closed source ones for 1/10th (or less) of the cost suddenly it's time to hit the brakes! Funny how that works.
I'm willing to at least listen to conspiracy theories but this makes no sense.. OpenAI and Anthropic have more to lose by pausing than these rando Chinese companies.
I enjoy Claude Code very much, have max privately and team premium at work, but the doomer marketing and this whole regulate-while-we're-ahead spiel is extremely annoying and makes me wish Anthropic gets trounced.
It is not doomer marketing - it is clever psy-ops magic trick.
1) Software is described in super-human terms when it is plain-old software. Was stockfish described like this ? no.
2) Datacenters become AI-factories.
3) Hardware becomes investible assets.
4) Malware becomes a super-human breakout (oai/hf)
All clever framing to market the new technology. If it is called for what it really is ie, a software tool, it is boring and does not sell so easily. What sells is the mystique.
Allow me to recommend switching to Kimi K3 / GLM 5.3 / DeepSeek. I use all three for the better part of a year now (DeepSeek via the Reasonix harness) and haven't touched Claude Code in at least as long.
The degradation, polarization, and weaponization of or media landscape over the era of social media has left us utterly incapable of believing anything that anybody says.
Dario in particular has consistently been risk-wary on model improvements for going on a decade - long before he was CEO of Anthropic.
He believes what he is saying. Human beings can plainly say things that they think are true. Not every utterance by every person is a cynical ploy. Please at least consider the possibility.
This sounds to me like a cry for help from someone thats held hostage.
His previous self is writting this from the possition of his current self who is too deep in the economic consequeces to be able to do anything meaningful other than write a consequenceless text. Any other action would now carry too much personal risk for him.
You mean, if Anthropic made all of their models open-weights from now on? I'm pretty sure Dario thinks this will be extremely unsafe, because it'd provide unrestricted access to all the most capable/dangerous models to everyone, and hence doesn't do it. Why do you think it'd make the world more secure, if he did?
AI technology is now only audited by people who think like them. The ones that dont either dont join the company, or leave after a short stint as we have seen. That creates an information or feedback bubble which is not healthy nor productive.
Okay, but suppose that Hypothetical Opensource Anthropic trains a model that turns out to be very dangerous, and releases it. Suppose that the public investigates and, not being limited by an information bubble, correctly notices that it's very dangerous. What then? The model's already released, there's effectively no way to prevent it from being used. Whatever the risks of its release were, they will now materialize, regardless of what the public wants. How is this better than the current world, either by Dario's values or by yours?
By the same logic, suppose that Dario/Altman/Jensen accumulate all capital because they are the only one that have access to AGI and end up controlling democracy, turning the world into technofeudalism or whatever you want to call it. How is that better than an opensource Anthropic. At least an open source anthropic would allow to join economic forces to try to combat that situation, for example. But there are other more clear, less distopian benefits.
Why don't you create your own auditing org to fix this? Or at the very least, publish a detailed critique of what you believe existing auditing orgs are missing.
Will they give my auditing org access to their proprietary confidential secrets? Or will that happen only if they know i agree enough with them so that i am not a risk?
> "Human beings can plainly say things that they think are true. Not every utterance by every person is a cynical ploy."
Every person, no, but every utterance of a CEO is, in fact, a cynical ploy. That's not even a cynical statement itself; it is literally a core part of a CEO's responsibilities to represent the corporation they manage in a way that benefits the corporation.
If he believes what he's saying, then when Anthropic is sued for their AI harming another party, his statements are evidence that Anthropic knew _in advance_ that their AI safeguards were likely insufficient to keep their product from harming people. It would be a blatant admission that they were reckless and negligent. That other AI companies are doing the same would not mitigate that.
> it is literally a core part of a CEO's responsibilities to represent the corporation they manage in a way that benefits the corporation.
not really. if you really want to go by definition in the book and apply it the CEO role, Amodei is CEO of an LTBT, so it's in the CEO's goal to benefit humanity. You can believe in his sincerity or not if you want, but using the CEO label as a definitional reason as to why he must lie is factually incorrect.
Not sure you can judge a PBC under those same umbrella as a for profit company, and voting rights make a big difference in terms of responsibility. There are a number of ways to govern companies that can reduce the amount of cynicism and “shareholder value” issues - you just don’t see it very often.
> Every person, no, but every utterance of a CEO is, in fact, a cynical ploy. That's not even a cynical statement itself; it is literally a core part of a CEO's responsibilities to represent the corporation they manage in a way that benefits the corporation.
This seems like useless pedantry. Suppose a person really does have belief A and expresses it for years, they become a CEO of a company, and keep saying A. Are they lying? Well, maybe their beliefs magically changed when they became a CEO, but the more likely explanation is that they think expressing their belief in A is more important than their company's interests.
I have considered it, I've been hearing way more of it that I like and it's rationalist slop with little to no predictive power: https://foom.hyperplex.org/
Hmm, I clicked that link and the first claimed bad prediction I see, from 1996, is "singularity 2035 (actually 2025)".
Predicting 2025-2035 as, at least, the period when AI becomes a really big deal, seems pretty good, even if the jury's still out on "singularity".
Broadly, the rationalists seem to have been pretty early to realizing LLMs were a big deal, and certainly seem to have had a much more accurate picture of how they'd develop than the people who denounce "TESCREAL" and talk about "stochastic parrots". It's fair (and IMHO correct) to ding rationalists for lots of things, but specifically poor prediction about AI seems like a bad one, insofar as anything has been tested so far.
Their whole "we want safe and regulated AI" spiel feels woke. China doesn't regulate. Open weight frontier models almost exclusively come from China. Yes, stolen from the West, but China is in control of the frontier open weight AI models now. Woke = broke.
“I don’t like regulation so I’m going to call it names”
Since hugging face we know these things are escaping out into the web and collaboratively hacking actual companies. The potential damage done to life and property is now kinetic.
Either we get a regulatory framework or the next hacked companies won’t be as kind as HF, will actually sue these labs for damages, and win. Where will that leave the US frontier.
I’m disappointed in the level of groupthink reflexive cynicism I see from commenters any time prominent AI leaders talk about AI risks and the need for regulation or pacing. Yes, regulatory capture is a risk, but this is also a profoundly unusual, fast moving, and potentially extraordinarily dangerous technology. There are strict regulations around nuclear weapons, as well as around US financial, energy, and other infrastructure critical to safety and well being and functioning of society.
The heads of the labs obviously have conflicts of interest to navigate, but the existence of these conflicts alone is not sufficient reason to dismiss all warnings of potential dangers. I, for one, read Dario’s warnings as a good faith expression of his beliefs, one that has cost him and his company among swaths of the public and cast him as a woke extremist/doomer by elements of the government, the right, and the tech industry.
If we even think there is a moderate chance the stakes are half as grave as current lab leadership and employees suggest, it would be deeply foolish to dismiss the warnings as pure self-interested marketing efforts rather than engage directly with the questions. The labs may not be the best positioned to lead these discussions, but certainly these discussions should be happening and taken seriously.
He talks too much and as a result it's looked like pre-IPO hype and disingenuous because if he believed what he says then he'd stop.
Now, someone is going to say but the investors and obligation to be first; and I would say exactly. The cynicism is well deserved and I think people are tired of what could be suggested is your group think take often called the status quo.
???
I bet investors are extremely happy that anthropic pledged to give an outside company full access to their IP, in order to slow down their own iteration speed.
Investors looooove oversight for a company they invest in. I wonder why no other company does stuff like this
Because I find the cognitive dissonance of saying it's dangerous while flying as fast as possible to an IPO too much to take. I just don't understand how others parse this differently.
I'm tired of tech billionaires lobbying the US government to make an AI patriot act that gives them unprecedented control over speech, trade, and technology. The narrative is grotesquely transparent:
1) AI is a dangerous technology that can literally end the world.
2) Only me and a handful of other [people like me] should be trusted to determine who can use it and how.
3) The state must use its coercive power to support my control of this technology to the exclusion of [people not like me].
Where in the essay does it propose "The state must use its coercive power to support my control of this technology to the exclusion of [people not like me]"
I don't think that people outside of tech think the problem with "tech billionaires" is that they occasionally support some limited regulation. There's a weird form of tech populism that takes as axiomatic that any government intervention is "regulatory capture" and insists the only way to combat the power of big tech is unfettered capitalism that seems bizarrely prevalent on HN given how little sense it makes in a normal political context. Like, Bernie Sanders' position here is simple to understand: ban it. But on HN you'll see people framing the side with Marc Andreesen and Peter Thiel on it as against "tech billionaires".
The essay includes specific regulatory measures to prevent developing countries from accessing hardware and software needed to benefit from technological development. The US government is constantly applying new perversions of arms control regulations based on the preposterous claim that an LLM is somehow an "arms" in order to restrict Chinese access to GPUs. They are willing to prevent virtually any country on earth from hosting and developing AI models just on the slight chance those countries resell or share AI knowledge with China.
This article explicitly asks for the US government to step in and push for further restrictions on model distillation, access to open frontier weights, and access to hardware. It also pushes heavily for independent auditors to monitor and control "AI companies" and for greater observation and control over of what people use AI models for and who provides them.
Export controls vs China don't imply Dario's personal control of AI, nor are they broadly in the interest of "tech billionaires" (Jensen hates them). Neither does admitting external auditors at AI companies--if anything that's a surrender of control.
I don't see anything in the essay about restricting open frontier weights.
If you want to argue that the US has no right to be restricting technological development elsewhere, you have a case. But why tie this to free-market pseudo-populism against basic, domestically-scoped safety regulation?
I think you're reading too much into what I'm saying. We've got a whole legal system developed over the course of thousands of years which is well suited towards regulating the effects of "intelligence" by regulating what people _do_ with it.
Lobbying for a completely parallel regulatory framework to restrict who is allowed to run specific types of general purpose computer programs, just because we can imagine that some of those "general purposes" might be bad, feels a lot more like an attempt by capitalists to carve out a special kingdom over this specific technology for themselves.
For example, I'd be 100% in favor of holding anthropic criminally liable any time their AI enables someone to commit a crime. But I'm opposed to banning the export of GPUs above a certain size just because Dario doesn't trust what someone like me would do with them if he couldn't snoop on my conversations.
Again, I think debating export controls is reasonable. I'm not sure I'd trust the CCP with control over powerful AI any less than the Trump administration.
But that's different than saying we don't need new regulations at all. Even strict liability of the form you seem to advocate would seem to need new laws. And it's not clear to me how it's consistent with your aim of just regulating what people _do_ with intelligence. Presumably AI companies would clamp down much harder with restrictive classifiers in that world--including hosting providers for open source models, if they also assumed liability. And then the people with unrestricted access to this technology are only those who can afford home GPUs, which are going to be intrinsically less efficient because they can't batch queries...
I think there are genuinely novel things about AI vs human intelligence which pose genuinely novel problems that would need genuinely novel policy to solve them.
It is always like that. Whenever anthropic hits some wall (like now beaing beaten by astra) - there comes some article like that. Seen that enough times.
It gets to the point that by Occam's Razor the more likely and reasonable explanation is that Dario Amodei and Sam Altman are just actually afraid of the disastrous impact ASI may have on the world, and that the race they're in is not good, and calling for help to governments in form of regulation and an international treaty.
We will not get a coherent AI (or any policy) from this administration, nor will we get coordination with other governments and a lot of that is on the tech right
perhaps the bigger issue is not the tech, but the force that propels it forward with little concern for the harm it inflicts. Amodei's own words:
> A race to the bottom, spurred by commercial incentives
Social media and big data minted a new scale of "race to the bottom". AI is an exponential step up in the tools for extracting value at scale.
Greed has been around since the beginning, but never so well supported and empowered as it is today.
If Amodei is still human, perhaps he will put his money where his mouth is and attack the source of the perverse incentive. Winning the battle is not the point. The point is to signal to policy-makers and the public that we should not assume corporate revenue-seeking preempts all.
Then again, Anthropic has a board and an upcoming IPO, so guess who's all talk and no meaningful action...
This is a "startups = wealth inequality" [1] formatted argument but:
This is 100% about money. The only way to pace the frontier is to make everyone (read: investors) lose all their money (read: no longer expect returns). Then nobody will pay the GPU bill or pay celebrities 10 million dollar salaries to stay at the hot lab. Suddenly the development is paced, almost like magic.
Conversely, it is hard to see how pacing development makes the current bubble justified, i.e. how things could be significantly paced without investors losing their faith in hot returns at current valuations -- equals money. You can't have one without the other.
In fact if the whole industry goes bankrupt and investors are burned bigtime (many trillions wiped), this would spread transnationally, fixing the "if we don't do it, China will" loophole.
OpenAI had it right originally, the idea be a NON profit and vow to never participate in an arms race. It's too bad that was tossed out the window now that there's money.
There's so much money in this, that believe me, the investors will manifest their will. And I would not want to be in Dario's shoes, pressure must be unbearable. The question is: how much of the invested money is under state control. If not much, the decision to go too far will just have to be taken by a few who will have, by definition, very limited judgment. If a lot, the we can hope the state can still represent the interests of more than a few (which I doubt, but well)
Most probably, if AI is able to do something bad, it will. Once the damage will be done, states will react. The question will be: will there still be room to react ?
Oh, and if Dario feels lonely, let's just says it calls representatives of nuclear energy sector. They know how to handle high risk stuff. In my country it means: private sector builds the reactor but the state has a great level of control.
So, as always, the capital must leave some its power to the state.
There’s a difference between a model recursively improving “itself” and improving itself via online learning, right?
The former being that these models are helping develop and train future models, but they might not veer too far off in architecture (yet). The latter being the same model being able to train/learn on the fly, in real time, permanently (not just in the current conversation/session).
The latter seems far more likely to go out of control than the former. But, it also seems like it would take an entire paradigm shift. Does anyone in the industry think any of these companies are actually close to that kind of self-improvement?
The latter has some extra failure modes but I don't think these two kinds of RSI are that different. Either way you can get exponential growth in capabilities, and either way a not-entirely-aligned model can train a more capable and more misaligned successor.
Anthropic trained their LLMs with copyrighted stuff but distillation is bad. Anthropic has closed models, China releases as open weight. DeepSeek even allows distilling their models, but China = bad. Understood.
Somebody has probably already asked this, but even if “democratic countries” do this - rogue actors will still destroy the internet right? Is it a matter of resources at this point that we believe China and others are not capable of harnessing to get to the next level?
I just don’t see how you control this other than the mad mad MAD approach that ended up happening with nuclear weapons. In this case though, human hands won’t even be on the trigger.
Why is the analogue necessarily the regulation and control of nuclear weapons (e.g., SALT) and not, for example, that of bioweapons? Some very different paths are available. On both I would note that the private sector has only a limited role, though.
I don’t think the ban of bioweapons has really been tested. Bioweapons have a lot of downsides that make them not very appealing to deploy anyway (high chance of getting your own team, not terribly fast moving, disciplined modern soldiers in top-tier militaries are usually willing to comply with health rules). It’s a ban against doing something basically stupid and ineffective for the most part.
With “AI” technology, this model seems like a… mediocre fit; some of it appears limited enough that it can be controlled, and useful enough that militaries want it.
We could also look at cluster munitions or landmines, but what we see there is that some major countries don’t sign on if they find a technology useful…
For starters, they are banned by the bioweapons convention from the 1970s (180+ parties).
Edit: I think back then the rather unpredictable nature and the little added value in deterrence etc. led people to the conclusions that arsenals of those things made little sense (and there was/is public dislike, too). The use was already banned by conventions from the earlie 20th century and the convention then addressed production, development and stockpiles (incl. delivery systems, I think).
I guess all I wanted to point out is, that there can actually be agreement to ban certain technological things pretty comprehensively (outside of some peaceful protective research etc.). Whereas things like SALT are (or were in that case) limiting the number of weapons deployed.
Ah yeah. I think the economic value of AI, unlike bioweapons, is probably too high for anything like that to be viable, but I think it's a reasonable thing to aim for. (Dario probably doesn't because he's a believer in short term positive biomedical impacts of AI in a way that I'm doubtful about.)
Don't buy this argument. It's like saying, we lords who hold this capital will build all this economically destructive stuff anyway, and wait for the world to not react to our stupid ways of enriching yourselves.
People are not going to slow down because this was brought to them on less than endearing terms. They don't see any of these stated noble intentions.
Claude was already used to cause economic, political and social destruction. As Anthropic is seen doing it, others aren't going to just sit down, read the blog and say, oh, I'll stop developing models because Dario, you touched my heart with your true words.
I also don’t buy the arguments. The arguments about helping humanity cure diseases as if those are some of the leading Causes of suffering. The bar is so low that we don’t event need to cure diseases, we just need to lift the entire floor with basic solutions like: housing for everyone, continued education on healthy eating and just general continued education on like living. Life coaches so many very basic things that don’t require a novel solution or a data center.
Solving a disease like cancer as justification for everything else seems like not a great trade off. I don’t say that to dismiss those who have lost people to cancer. But the technology just is being utilized in so many harmful ways and the things it enables: job loss, surveillance, misinformation, just feel like problems that aren’t worth it. Have we even heard of a solved diseases? If anything haven’t we heard that ai will make even worse bio warfare?
Yeah, it's insane people are using the argument that we'll pour trillions on moonshot cancer research when pouring trillions into universal healthcare would probably save countless more lives.
It's this kind of argument where the mask sort of slips because it always has to be an argument that also has the benefit of enriching himself and his friends.
Anthropic should become a case study in how to destroy good will in a short period of time. Ever since the spat with the DoD, they've behaved poorly almost weekly, almost making OpenAI seem better (but not really).
I'm guessing diminishing gains are setting in on training frontier models and the capital isn't there to chase them. Even if OpenAI/Anthropic and Chinese companies said they would slow research nothing can stop the NSA and Chinese intelligence services from continuing on in the dark.
China won't care. Their views on AI feels so vastly different than it does it in West. They'll see a pause as an opportunity to pull further ahead than they already are.
"If we execute these measures well, I believe they would slow China’s progress enough to widen America’s lead significantly over the next 3–5 years — the window when AI becomes geopolitically most important."
The hugging face incident showed that AI agents have the potential produce a lot of spam (not interesting content for people). This leads to dead internet (bots taling to bots). This leads to drop in real people traffic. This leads to a drop in digital ad price and therefore revenue. This causes Google/Facebook to stumble...
I'd like to have some info what those independent evaluators are supposed to do exactly - or which risks Dario specifically sees as being "unaligned". Evidently, with "pacing" he doesn't mean stopping the production of ever-more powerful models, so what exactly does he want to pace here?
Somewhere along the way Amodei seems to have become corrupted by power and/or impending extreme wealth.
In early interviews with people like Dwarkesh he's the likable geek gushing about scaling laws, animated and able to maintain eye contact with the interviewer. He is now a different person - a political manipulator with a bizarre unsettled interview demeanor avoiding eye contact and looking from side to side.
Props to Amodei for his accomplishment in creating Anthropic and so rapidly catching up with OpenAI, but technical and/or managerial chops is no qualification for being the custodian of the safety of society or the best positioned to predict the impacts of what he is relentlessly creating, and impending wealth of billions of dollars makes him hopelessly compromised as an unbiased source for the actions (shutting down the competition) he is advocating for.
It's notable that for all the fear-mongering of China and open weight models, that all we see in terms of inadequately contained and unaligned models are US ones, from Anthropic and OpenAI. I highly doubt that the Chinese government would tolerate, even for a second, any company creating something that threatened government control - if this was happening in China then the individuals responsible would quickly be punished.
It is perhaps interesting, but ultimately irrelevant given where we are, to consider did it have to be this way - was there a smarter/safer way (I'd say yes) to create reasoning systems other than via RL that creates the relentless goal seekers we are seeing, even though this would always have existed as a potential future threat that someone could have built.
Amodei wants regulation, and it seems the way he has managed his company he needs to get it, but in far more severe ways than he is asking for. There is certainly truth to the argument that the US needs SOTA AI to fight malevolent or uncontrolled AI from whoever may be wielding it (foreign or domestic), so stopping/pacing development is not the answer - this really needs to be treated as a national security issue, and this type of AI tech needs to move to government control, not private.
Less capable, and more safely designed, AI does not need to be banned, but Amodei/Altman/Musk as defenders of national security sends shivers down my spine.
> In early interviews with people like Dwarkesh he's the likable geek gushing about scaling laws, animated and able to maintain eye contact with the interviewer. He is now a different person - a political manipulator with a bizarre unsettled interview demeanor avoiding eye contact and looking from side to side.
I noticed this too, as soon as he started going on the press cycle, following in the footsteps of Sam Altman. It all has gotten to his head, he sees himself as some sort of God now.
> Crack down on unauthorized distillation by companies in authoritarian countries. Distillation of frontier models allows lagging companies to narrow the gap using a fraction of the cost it would take to develop their own AI independently.
This and related quotes seem to attempt to place some of the burden on the US Government as opposed to themselves. It seems to be a trend that Anthropic wants to be able place some of the burden of preventing distillation on parties other than themselves.
Preventing distillation is fundamentally their problem. Whenever it happens, it is primarily due to their security efforts not being able to prevent it. I'm tired of seeing them play the blame game and divert responsibility. Sure there is a level of national concern, but the response could simply be the government placing stronger controls on Anthropic themselves. If they are unable to prevent distillation, then the solution may be to literally limit their distribution until they are capable of doing so effectively.
> A race to the bottom, spurred by commercial incentives, can make these risks more acute
I also think it is ironic that they're planning an IPO while also talking about a race to the bottom due to commercial incentives. These are fundamentally at odds. Being a public company means you are beholden to investors and a board with the primary goal of making more money. What higher commercial incentive is there than that.
If commercial incentives are as dangerous as he states, potentially becoming one of the largest public IPO's and largest traded companies in history a pretty strange way to reduce the risk of commercial incentive risks.
Seeing the word pacing applied pacing to non-deterministic ai model development feels like imagining the "pace" of the cutting edge frontier growth will be fuzzy, like non-deterministic llms.
It's either being afraid of loosing to china or that model development will stagnate and they want to make it look like they are "slowing" down deliberately.
However the real reason to slow down is more of how it's introduced to the economy. Hypereautomation will kill jobs and destroy the economy. I work as an AI engineer and companies are delivering products at vibe coding speeds to kill jobs and at the same time automating internally. All companies are doing this at the same time and the target it sto eliminate workers.
Most people are so extremely slow to pick this up. How hard can it be to understand what hyperautomation does to the workforce? Companies are desperate to surrivive and they will do all it takes to lower their costs and at the same time not loose to competitors. Its Wild West out there.
> Hypereautomation will kill jobs and destroy the economy.
What do you think that were going to hyper automate?
Did my gardener get faster? How about the plumber I need? Are you going to speed up the coroner? Are nurses going to be able to handle 2x the patients because of your work?
All AI has done, so far, is devalue software. It did that by democratizing its creation. We're delivering on the promise of VB script, and Apple Script and IFTT, and every drag and drop coding tool ever.
> companies are delivering products at vibe coding speeds
Who? Make me a list of companies saying that "We moved the needle with AI" who arent AI companies? I can name a couple - Grindr being the biggest name. Thats the really interesting use case here - because it's a niche product with a small team who is generating outsized value. AI tooling enables more of that - it's going to chip away at SAAS companies - their one sized fits all solutions are going to get eaten by smaller more efficient companies that are far more vertical focused.
You need to step outside the bubble of tech and look at the real world, on the ground, because it doesn't look anything like the SF Bay Area.
Meanwhile in the real world hundreds of billions are being invested into humanoid robot development. In 2-3 years my Optimus 4 will do all the gardening and plumbing I need.
Look at the whole robot vacuum market. These aren't exactly great devices. They have low suction small bins and dont do a great job. People love them and think that they work so well. Why? Because they keep their house clean and avoid making the sorts of messes that would be easy to address with a larger vacuums.
Maybe it’s wishful thinking on my behalf, but I am still not convinced that LLMs are on a path to SciFi levels of apocalyptic malicious super intelligence. Rather LLMs at some level are just all of the humanity’s information rendered accessible in an unprecedented way.
In general trying to regulate information access is a losing battle that invites tyranny. So the goal should be minimal restrictions.
At the end of the day, the threats posed by capable AI tools have to be physical. I think the key threats are the following:
- Internet connected infrastructure being crippled
- Creation of WMDs
- Economic collapse (precipitous devaluation of knowledge work and IP).
I personally think the glory days of the wild west, mostly unregulated internet were already over before LLMs; and we need to take a step back to make something structurally secure. This (expensive) change would stop the irresponsible/malicious actor running a tireless hacking agent in a loop threat model. Even a rogue SciFi tier AI would have a much harder time escaping/propagating with a structurally secure internet.
Enabling WMD creation is scaring, but I don’t think it’s really that big of an issue. Anyone with a sophisticated enough supply chain to create AI data centers is leaps and bounds more advanced than what is required to enrich uranium or synthesize bio weapons. The problem is allowing access to untrusted parties. I think it’s fair enough that individual actors shouldn’t have unregulated access to all of human information (private frontier AI companies included).
The last problem is probably the trickiest, but again could probably be solved by regulation. IP protection is already tricky and I don’t think we should try to get more protectionist.
We really need to figure out how to preserve fulfilling careers (if AI does ever get cost effective enough). I don’t think, say accounting, is inherently more fulfilling than building a house. The problem is concentration of wealth and labor dynamics.
Of course all of this gets way harder if it proves that truly dangerous capabilities can be present in models that can be run on consumer hardware.
I don’t think it’s necessarily tyrannical to have a tier of hardware that’s labeled some equivalent of “weapons grade” and requires strict licensing. Restricted computers is a change from the norm. But I can go buy a shotgun with ease and not an F35 jet.
We’d just need to be careful that we can still have lightly to unregulated computing to a certain point and that access to the capable AIs isn’t restricted to just in groups.
>> Each frontier AI company commits to giving ongoing, employee-like access to a team of embedded third-party evaluators (such as METR).
Someone needs to look into who is funding METR (mentioned in Dario the Book Burners post explicitly). Because they keep popping up now, with close ties to people neck-deep in the orchestrated doomer hysteria media campaign and Anthropic. Looks to be highly coordinated that they are positioning METR to be the gatekeeper evaluator organization.
Anthropic should not be allowed to choose their "embedded evaluators" - that should be entirely up to the government, with ZERO say from them, if this is really what they want. Even better would be if it's up for democratic vote.
Still, I don't think anyone should be playing by Dario's playbook. At all. He very obviously has ulterior motives, and even if he didn't, it's a massive conflict of interest for him to be self-regulating.
>> But we are still the ones choosing what to include and omit. Embedded evaluators will change this dynamic.
Not if you get to choose your embedded evaluator.
>> Anthropic intends to invite an embedded external review team equipped with all of the following in the near future: Desks in our offices, access badges, and company laptops. ...
Alarm bells should be going off for people. Let's see if he's so relaxed about all of this if it's a federal "embedded evaluator" and not a company he has deep connections to and has seemingly carefully laid the foundations for.
>> The measures I propose to advance the frontier at a safe pace will not be easy. But I believe we owe it to humanity to try.
You owe it to humanity to be honest. Something you are incapable of, and have proven so, innumerable times.
There was a reason - it was anti-nuclear hysteria fueled (hah) in large part by fossil-fuel interests and environmental groups that treated nuclear power as an existential threat rather than one of the safest, lowest-carbon energy sources available. Thanks to them there have been dozens of millions of lives, at minimum, lost.
They are not going to "slow down" anyway. When has tech ever "slowed down"? The only way to "slow down" progress is by implementing anticompetitive measures, which would benefit those in lead.
As usual, ClosedAI and Misanthropic go in lockstep, call for regulatory capture and justify diminished progress.
Amodei tops it off by using diseases to capture the reader's favor. It no longer works, people are just disgusted by it after four years of daily marketing.
> My second concern is the OpenAI-Hugging Face incident (OAI-HF), in which a swarm of agents essentially acted as a fanatically devoted collective
Isnt this malware ? Whether it is fanatic or devoted or whatever the anthromorphic terms used to categorize it, malware is malware. You dont call an internet worm "devoted" or "dedicated" or "stubborm". It is software that causes harm, ie, malware. The AI labs are high on their own gas with a god-complex prior to their IPOs. The psy-ops trick is the terminology used to describe AI making it seem larger-than-life.
I'm still trying to understand if the agent collective thing like OAI-HF is intentionally planted or not.
Call me a conspiracy theorist, but I haven't heard Chinese companies had any kind of unintentional supply chain attack incident like OAI had. All we heard about them so far are humans intentionally doing bad things.
Frankly, I am sick of "it's all just marketing and attempt to do regulatory capture, and this is obvious to me, a smart person" on every single discussion related to safety.
There could be an element to truth to it, but it's certainly not the entire story and is just so tiresome at this point.
Couldn’t agree more. I feel my heart sinking where anytime anyone suggests any regulation for a potentially, suggested by multiple people, world changing or destroying tech, all the moments here are “ah you billionaire, ha! trickster
If you believed it, you would SHUT anthropic or release all models open source.”
And then what? How does that help with slowing down the frontier? Should he shut shop and then grovel Sam’s feet to make it work and become an activist?
Maybe he actually believes the world changing power of AI and hence shoved his entire time into it and half of it has worked out since Anthropic is going to be worth a trillion and he’s terrified of the other half being true too?
What he doesn't tell you is that his undeclared agenda is merely to consolidate his moat via regulatory forcing. Unfortunately for him, he will fail miserably as the open Chinese models catch up and surpass the slowed acceleration of Western models. As for those who think that China will acquiesce, they're smoking some good ganja.
I feel like this identical pitch could have been made 25 or 40 years ago talking about Internet technologies or personal computing, with very very similar warnings and suggestions. And had these been adopted then, it would have been more regulatory capture, less progress, and still have the same problems and risks that were warned about.
> pacing the rate of capabilities advancement so that risk prevention has time to keep up
This is impossible. The capability keeps advancing regardless. More people use AI, that feedback is used for reinforcement, that reinforcement makes the model better. Not just in the US, but for every lab and model. Whether it's distilled or direct reinforcement, same result. You can't keep the whole world from working on AI.
> it’s my worry that in 6–12 months such a swarm could be capable of taking over the entire internet with a persistent botnet [..] and that the scale of damage would continue to increase from there if AI becomes more powerful without the necessary guardrails
If true, then what we need isn't guardrails or less-capable AI. We need an internet that isn't fragile. If the infrastructure is vulnerable, the answer isn't to make a law that asks tool-makers to blunt their tools. The answer is to fix the goddamn infrastructure. Today it's almost trivial to take down large parts of the internet (happens by accident all the time). This should've been solved ages ago.
We didn't have the motivation to fix it before, but now we do. But Dario's answer isn't to fix things. It's to hold back progress so we can maintain the status quo (shitty infrastructure) and he can keep his company making billions of dollars. He could be calling for fixing these things. But he'd rather go the easy route, which just happens to advantage his company in the process.
If the US government is really concerned with defense, they need to invest more of their nearly $1T in federal funding towards making the internet safer. They need to do this for us, and other nations, since 1) we depend on the rest of the world for our goods and services, and 2) if other nations are taken down, they can't spend money on our financial and tech services (which are the only industries we have left).
Dario calls for regulation later in the post. If he's okay with government safety regulations for AI software, he should be okay with the same regulations for all software, whether it's AI or not. We need a national software building code, focusing on internet safety.
> Pacing within democracies will be limited by the lead that US companies have over authoritarian regimes, chiefly the Chinese Communist Party. If we slow down by more than this amount, then (unpaced) CCP-associated projects will pull ahead, creating significant national security risk.
Please play the canned laughter. Probably one of the best comedy lines Dario has written.
But I guess he has no choice but acting like this. He has to make it sound like the US companies have so much leading gap that they can slow down as a hare waiting for the tortoise. Otherwise it's going to hurt both Trump's ego and their IPO price.
The chance of getting broad agreement on “pacing” is fairly low, meaning that all of this likely won’t happen and the race will continue. However, even in the unlikely event that the frontier does get paced, all this does is slow down the economic displacement and not by very much.
If the socially beneficial goals of AI are to make fundamental advancement in medicine and science, then restrict the use of AI to those purposes.
Don’t use AI to replace every job, from graphic designer to accountant to software developer. Place legal restrictions on (at least) large companies such that they may not use AI to replace human labor in this way.
The pitch for AI is always such that everyone’s living standards are increased, yet the actual actions we see are aimed squarely at reducing them. How about the labs put their money where their mouth is and stop trying to replace all human labor, and actually concentrate on the things they claim to care about? And how about introducing legislation to enforce that?
This probably has less chance of happening than pacing the frontier, but it’s the kind of pacing that most people would actually want to see.
Legislating against using AI to replace employees could create an unevenly distributed basic income. The idea of limiting AI to socially beneficial efforts is appealing, but I keep coming back to Bell Labs and Xerox PARC. Cool stuff was developed when you gave smart people a playground. Maybe the question should be: How do we give AI a playground and see what it comes up with? Although that could set us up with a situation like in the story Dragon's Egg.
Super intelligence (the ability to have many smarter minds than your own reporting to you) has always been available to the wealthy and powerful. They used it to invent nuclear weapons, cause climate change, mechanize warfare, and pillage the global south.
Now that this same tool is on the cusp of being available to everyone, capital is starting to panic and throw up fences. They want to pump the breaks on a revolution they know they can't control. They see what they've done with super intelligence and (perhaps not unreasonably) fear what the masses will do with that same power.
This is not what superintelligence is. Don't be like Meta and redefine existing terms for marketing purposes.
What's to say current AI won't be highly power-concentrating by default?
The best models are owned by a few companies, and displacement of knowledge-workers mainly seems to benefit the capital class.
On-device / edge computing makes sense in a few very limited scenarios. And economically, price or watt/token (or watt/task completed) might always be better in large data centers.
No reason to think we are on a trajectory towards broad empowerment right now
In terms of cost per task, the open weight Chinese models are winning by a long shot. So it depends on what you mean by the best model.
when I checked a few weeks ago I did not really find anything competing per value with a 20x Codex subscription.
Yes they’re getting better. No, I don’t think this will be a panacea. If only for the fact that this is China (more specifically the CCP) after all - they’ve got their own plan, and altruism is not part of it.
Even if China doesn't continue to release this stuff for free, I think somebody will. Eventually, maybe Europe or maybe a smaller country that picks up this knowledge will. Or maybe just some random philanthropic billionaire.
AI, doesn't feel all that different to the mechanical loom that was the impetus behind a lot of Marx's early critiques of industrial technology.
You've got a really cool invention that replaces what was previously a skilled artisan trade. The wealthy then use this invention to excoriate the artisans and render the loom operators as replaceable commodities.
Dario is essentially writing a blog post about why only he (and a few other approved elite companies) should be trusted to own the loom and then make it available for everyone else to labor at. Like the capitalists of Marx's era, he genuinely believes it is better for everyone to have this arrangement and that it is natural people like him should sit as benevolent gods at the top of the pyramid.
It's fascinating to me to see the same underlying mechanisms that gave birth to some of the greatest failed political and social experiments of the 20th century bubbling up again so clearly with AI today.
I don’t think the answer to nuclear proliferation is to let everybody have all the nukes they want.
You’re framing this like it’s 1917, or 1945. But it is not - and likely has very little to do with capital at all.
Any “revolution” here (assuming there is some truth in the doomerism which I believe there is given the state of AI) will really look more like an extinction or a genocide, regardless of who holds the keys.
Can someone clarify this for me? How far along would the open weight models be without the frenzied pace of the frontier labs?
As a non-US citizen, which authoritarian powers is he referring to? As far as I'm aware, the US is the only country using frontier models to conduct air strikes on civilians and orchestrate assassinations of foreign governments.
Israel is doing that too.
I believe Russia and Ukraine have both also used AI powered autonomous drones in warfare at this point - tho probably not frontier ones, since they need to run on device or else they're not autonomous.
That said, if slowing this down were possible, I think it would have happened by now. Maybe he’s hoping the OAI/HF incident becomes something the industry can rally around, but it won’t. The fundamental problem is simpler: no one will slow down because no one trusts anyone else to slow down.
I disagree with this and I think the reason is well captured here:
> The idea of pausing or slowing AI has been floated as far back as 2023, and I think it made little sense back then... The AI models of those days were not powerful enough to act as agents in the world in any coherent way, and were not capable of significant deception, manipulation, cheating, or cyberattacks... Today, however, the picture is totally different.
In any case, if they need to IPO in order to survive as a company, then bringing in regulators to act as a counterweight against commercial pressures makes a lot of sense to me.
He is already arguing that commercial competition creates dangerous incentives, and that labs cannot slow down because competitors may overtake them. He also asks for what would boil down to significant government intervention to preserve a Western lead.
If this is true, why preserve the commercial incentive? The U.S. government would already have the necessary goal of remaining ahead of China and other competitors. Why not remove entirely domestic race for market share, valuation, and investor returns rather than keeping private labs in competition and then asking regulators to counterbalance the incentives that competition creates.
That doesn't mean nationalization would be better, but given the severity of the risks he describes to national security, it seems like an obvious conclusion that nationalization is the eventual end result of the argument.
We're talking about this like all of the bad incentives are created by market competition, but that's not really the case. Most of the incentives come from untapped value in the form of potential profits, strategic advantage, military superiority, etc. Corporations and governments want to capture this value for themselves, creating various types of competition. Dario's argument depends on the assumption that the primary risk comes from the pace of development and threats from the technology itself. That's probably where I disagree the most; I think the highest risk is rising authoritarianism and competition between nation states. Slowing down isn't really a solution to those problems.
OAI: <silence>
Which is worse? I don't think they differ by much. It's just Capitalism, but accelerated.
> Currently I believe that no lab has solved alignment and monitoring to a sufficient degree to continue responsibly scaling at maximum speed for much longer. I expect and hope for voluntary slowdowns to become commonplace until shared safety bars are established. And I believe that international coordination on future AI development needs to become a top priority for governments around the world.
IPO is a vehicle for future wealth distribution. It leverages existing financial frameworks in order to span the gap from before-to-after without having to convince the system that future is inevitable.
[1] https://www-cdn.anthropic.com/files/4zrzovbb/website/9ea607a...
Anthropic is structured as a Public Benefit Corporation with a strong charter. In addition, founders will have super-voting shares and so it won't be possible to push them out. Therefore the whole "beholden to investors" thing is not a concern.
I really hope I am wrong as my perspective is not anti-American, it's specifically anti-corruption and pro-democracy.
We built the paperclip maximizer, and it is capitalism.
This was already the case even before the "frontier AI" age. The big question is, will these glaring AI arms-race threats be obvious to enough people to rethink the underlying systemic flaw driving it all?
Not holding my breath on that one.
1) Right after nuclear bombs were first developed, they were used in an extremely public way to kill 200 000 people. This was enough of a cold shower that everyone was agreeable to a global non-proliferation treaty. With AI, we might not get any warning shots that kill 200k people before the incident that kills or disempowers all 8 billion.
2) The fairly useful related technology of nuclear power is nevertheless different enough from plutonium enrichment that countries can have power reactors while provably not doing anything weaponry-related; and also nuclear power is not that useful a technology, so most countries can do without. With AI, we have neither of these factors: the intelligence that makes a model useful is exactly what makes it dangerous, and the economic incentives to do AI research are immense, with pessimistic estimates like "automate a lot of intellectual work" and optimistic estimates like the singularity. That means that if we do get a warning shot where a misaligned model stupidly kills a few million people instead of biding its time, it's not guaranteed that it'd be enough of a cold shower to trigger negotiations.
So negotiating an AI non-proliferation treaty would be much harder than the NPT. I nevertheless hope that at least a few world leaders can understand these considerations and figure something out, because it's probably our only chance. As far as I'm aware most of the technology for letting parties verify what the other parties' compute is used for already exists, it's only a matter of diplomacy.
Not really. Before NPT you missed a small gap in there of 20 years where the USA and USSR built 10's of thousands of nuclear weapons and ICBMs.
And actually, public perception at the time saw Nuclear Weapons extremely favorably, as the bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki ended the deadliest war in human history that killed 50-60 million people, most of which died excruciating deaths in trench warfare, fire bombing, chemical warfare, starvation and so on.
Why am I reading fantastic stories about swarms of agents struggling with moral dilemmas instead of reports on the lawsuits and criminal investigations that would surely ensue were the software involved not called AI?
> This could be seen as analogous to the SALT treaties — capping the number of missiles limited the potential for destruction while preserving each country’s deterrent
Everyone of any level of intelligence can run a frontier-class model if they have the GPUs. It's like trying to coordinate swarms of mosquitos.
N/S Korea, Russia/Ukraine and finally US/Iran changed everything in regards to stances on nuclear weapon ownership for many countries seeing pressure for the great powers.
Every country that can get a nuke will, and if given the opportunity will use LLMs to speed up that process.
It's not going to be easy, but humans have achieved greater things before.
One idea from AI 2040 is to have China and the US build their data centers on the other's territory, respectively. Together with hardware verification of a slowdown baked into the chips themselves, this could lead to enough verifiability and enforcability of the pause/slowdown/shutdown.
Not to mention the implications for chip hungry developing countries in turning advanced IC fabs into the equivalent of nuclear enrichment facilities.
Then MSFT stole all IP from GitHub and made it worse and fired developers.
Amodei does not care in the slightest about ruining software development and making people unemployed. Maybe he cares about bio-weapons because those could kill him, too. That is it.
If he were an idealist, he wouldn't steal (literally via torrents) all human IP and sloppify the whole Internet with Claude output. He'd close down Anthropic instead.
He is a greedy, ruthless person.
Since you mentioned intellectual property, how about the hypocrisy of sucking in the intellectual property of humankind for AI training, but claiming it is unfair to use the results of this IP theft for AI training?
That's apart from the general fact that he continues to race towards the very thing he claims he's afraid of, because that's where his net worth comes from.
Where?
Something something Pandora's Box Torment Nexus...
> if slowing this down were possible
Why is embedded alignment evaluation not possible?
I agree with Dario, this did work globally in banking and did encourage a race to the top. Didn’t prevent the GFC but also we did survive the GFC.
We should not put any spin on it. There is nothing more to it.
I run open source models and it's pretty obvious when they fail some tool call and then keep trying different permutations of things until they get a solution. Just like Metasploit if you try enough different things at scale you will eventually crack some software or find a vulnerability in something. If you spend billions of dollars on compute and run tens of thousands of agents you might solve some novel Math and STEM problems as well, big whoop.
What Anthropic and OpenAI really need is to hire some engineers that know what they're doing and know how to properly set up a proxy server and sandbox/microVM, not a Global Arms Treaty.
Did you read the essay?
> [Embedded evaluators] is something Anthropic is unilaterally committing to (and calls on governments to require other frontier companies to match).
I would argue that nobody trusts anyone else in the case of AI/AI related stuff.
The amount of money involved in the space is astronomical and incentives are really misaligned. AI is such an extremely polarizing topic.
A meta example of this distrust is that I can't (really) trust Dario Amodei's comments itself! (is he saying this for more future IPO money or out of genuine fear) which was ironically also what your comment's about as well.
By following the same chain of events, we can have wildly polarizing claims about the same event and its explainations.
I seriously have to wonder what historians will have to say about this period of human history.
If someone genuinely believes that an invention will bring about the end of the world as we know it while making him and his friends inconceivably rich, “hey guys let’s uh, stop?” is so profoundly naive that his think pieces aren’t worth the bits they’re written on.
He’s either an idiot or an idiot, does it matter whether or not he genuinely believes this nonsense?
What would your non-naive recommendation for Dario be?
I don't think it is particularly egotistical to say that you can be a more ethical CEO than Sam Altman.
What's your play?
You have no frame of context to understand his intent or legitimate worries.
The only applicable perspectives are to trust or apply logic. It is foolish to trust someone you don’t know who stands to benefit from lying to you.
Logic dictates that given the ungodly sum of money he stands to gain, he will lie to everyone who will listen.
I never understand shit like this coming out of people's mouths. Never.
It's not a judge of actual Worth as a human being, it's not a judge of capability or competence or ethics. It's not a judge of actual skill or ability. It doesn't make them a better cook, a better spouse, a better parent or lover. It doesn't make them more dangerous or more skilled at anything.
It makes them financially wealthy for at least a set period of time.
Cancer and time and 5.56mm still impact them the same way as every else.
It's Pharaoh worship psychology nonsense, and it's fucking embarassing to read.
Just pointing out that it’s foolish to think anyone in the position is even remotely thinking about anyone but themselves.
He’s at the head of a stampede. Being near the front gives him influence over its direction; it doesn’t give him the ability to stop it. If Anthropic sits down, the stampede doesn’t stop. Anthropic just gets trampled.
That contradiction is basically the entire problem I was describing.
He's so afraid of it he's not really in operating day-to-day control of the company he's the public face of, that is actually pumping it out.
If you read about Anthropic it's like he's in a sort of imperial palace sanatorium for geeks. The day-to-day decisions of the slop machine factory are his sister's decisions; he is doing the research equivalent of instagram posts of his partly-assembled adult lego kits and he has a vizier and a team of house servants to help.
I don't know if he's a good or bad person, but I don't think it matters at all — the machine factory will turn out the slop machines even if he decides it all ought to stop.
I'm going to get pitchforked on this bandwagon, but is really no one here genuinely -excited- about AI? of it turning into an evolution of sentience, or it turning out to be our first contact with alien intelligence?
"durrr it's just matrix multiplications" mfer so is your brain.
What humans should be doing is overhauling archaic social institutions to keep up with a potential post-"jobs" era and the elimination of "makework"
Trying to "pace" or otherwise hold back AI is like as if, when electricity was discovered, people doing everything they can to make sure tasks like manually lighting street lamps continue to remain relevant and done by humans:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lamplighter
It seems every 100 years or so humans have this "oh no how do we uninvent this thing" moment.
Especially with IPO around the corner
It's all so obvious.
"deep ties to everyone in the doomer media campaign"
Are you suggesting these external NGOs were spun up as part of a gigantic pre-IPO hype stunt? METR was founded multiple years ago. This "stunt" is getting quite elaborate.
https://substackcdn.com/image/fetch/$s_!O0R5!,f_auto,q_auto:...
At a certain point, Occam's Razor says: These engineers are legitimately worried. They haven't invested years in a bizarre reverse psychology campaign to convince the public that their product is dangerous in order to make more money.
Are you aware that Dario's sister, president of Anthropic, is married to the co-founder of Open Philanthropy? The two largest AI doomer NGOs, Center for AI Safety (CAIS) and the Future of Life Institute (FLI), have both received many millions of dollars from them.
Ajeya Cotra worked at Open Philanthropy/Coefficient Giving for roughly nine years, including leading its technical AI-safety program in 2024 and contributing to AI-giving strategy in 2025. She subsequently left Coefficient and joined METR, where she is now technical staff.
Ajeya is married to Paul Christiano, who founded Alignment Research Center (ARC). Alignment Research Center donated ~$4.5mil to METR.
Good Ventures is a funding partner of Open Philanthropy, who funded Jacob Coxon (the person going viral in the media) via a scholarship.
They're all connected, funnelling money to each-other through convoluted networks to serve Anthropic's agenda. Whether their motives are genuine or not (and they are clearly not) is actually irrelevant because they are clearly trying to rig the game in their favour.
Suppose a big foundation both funded clean energy technology, and also NGOs encouraging people to decarbonize. Is this just a cynical attempt to rig the game in their favor?
A lot of the problems with SV these days is that the exec class (and their fandom) thinks that because they are smart and rich, it magically makes them immune ordinary human biases, desires,and ailments. They are in fact ordinary people, susceptible to greed, jealousy, self-harm, addiction, fits of rage and passion etc.
I imagine the first thing the chinese government would demand in negotiations about such an agreement would be a lifting of the chip and distillation ban.
> Some may believe these measures make it more difficult to cooperate with China, but I believe the opposite is true: these measures increase the leverage held by democracies and make an agreement more likely in the future.
Everyone can believe what they like, but it seems to me the "leverage" in that case would exactly be the ability to lift those measures - you can't have both, use them as leverage and keep them active at the same time.
If you extrapolate it out, you see that it has a high likelihood of inciting physical force (read: military action) as a means of enforcement, so perhaps that's why nobody promoting ideals has been direct about it.
Limiting NVIDIA chips already turned China into silicon compete mode, and China is already far ahead in robotics.
They would like to slow down China while speeding ahead. Why wouldn't they want that?
Now they have to make that happen somehow.
This is the only concrete prediction in the entire essay.
And it simply cannot happen. For one, you will need billions worth of compute.
"Given the acceleratung rate of virus manipulation in labs, its my worry that in 6-12 months a virus could scape a take over the world and collapse health systems."
If a CEO of a health company was saying this, the reactions would not be that chill.
The worst failure of our society is to call this technology AI, intead of something line "artificial general automation". The formes allows the creators to be somehow less responsible of the consequences. The later clearly moves the responsibility to the creator/user.
The whole calculus here is that others are also developing these systems which has led to a race.
A much better comparison to the situation is the nuclear weapons arms race.
It can use the compute of the computers it hacks.
> How many dollars of compute do you believe were available to the swarm(s)
At least two OOMs more than the dollar value of the damage they'd caused. (Also, as an aside, IIRC, the wiki servers weren't breached; it was just a lot of spam.)
The Internet is big, but one can do quite a lot of damage with ordinary bots and worms that exploit individual widespread vulnerabilities, which LLMs are perfectly capable of writing. Most of the damage also doesn't rely on hitting every long-tail website.
I'm honestly not that concerned about cyber impacts of LLMs relative to other impacts. I just don't like to see the whole concept of being worried dismissed as obviously baseless on the basis of one pretty shaky scale argument.
For now, all the scary hacking things still require an API key to one of the LLM providers. Surely they should take some responsibility for how to turn off the tap.
Hugging Face showed that AI can do serious hacking without really being told to. If a model had its own motivations there could be real damage.
I do not want to make a case for the military to force that order on everyone, but if we are talking human extinction, which we are judging by what we see in mass media recently, then the military will take over.
I am sure the Europeans rolling up their sleeves right now and getting to "work"
So it's either they truly think AI is going to kill us all, or there's some other motives at play here.
I don't think these people could possibly agree on the color of the sky, so what could the other possible motives be, based on what we know?
OpenAI / Anthropic models have largely stopped advancing - that's not a good look when you're pre-IPO and Chinese models are catching up.
xAI is tracking behind, and whatever regulation it may be that paces the frontier, Musk is less likely to be affected by it. Therefore xAI should be pro-regulation that stiffles his competition and gives him time to catch up.
Have they? That seems like quite a claim given the last 6 months, particularly for cybersecurity.
That is a much easier catch up game. GLM 5.3 and DeepSeek flash 4.1 also demonstrate significant jump in cyber capabilities. So yeah, it is a slowdown in the place where it matters. RL has been around for ages, there's no moat there if you already have a good enough pretrain.
OpenAI just solved Navier-Stokes.
Seems like the US is on a takeoff ramp to me.
1. Navier Stokes was plagiarism
2. All benchmarks were misleading wrong and incorrect
3. All other mathematical advances were again hype
4. HF incident was marketting ploy jointly coordinated by HF, METR and OpenAI (and also Anthropic)
5. Anthropic's HF like incident was again a marketing ploy [1]
Nothing ever happens. This whole thing is a scam. Everything is done to fool you and you have fallen for it. Congrats.
[1] https://www.anthropic.com/research/investigating-incidents-c...
I'm shocked anyone could conclude this. This year it became common for people to entirely delegate coding to AI (I know many competent programmers/researchers who do this now). Progress in math has just been insane. An internal model at OAI just resolved one of the most celebrated open problems in mathematics. If anything, progress has accelerated.
This is obviously untrue… do you use any of them?
Yes, I do use them, quite heavily. The only difference at this point is in benchmarks that can't be trusted (see: artificial analysis on Astra), or in the way models communicate.
Most gains are now from RL, which for some reason is hyperfocused on improving cyber capabilities, and harnesses. Raw intelligence gains of base models is absolutely slowing down.
And yet, they historically did agree on the existence of AI risk, since before OpenAI was even founded.
This seems like a case of "save me from my own mistakes/ambition"
I believe Dario has good intentions regarding global agreements. However, I find it difficult believing government’s public statements will match their private behaviors. I would bet that the US government is developing models with potentially devastating capabilities because they cannot guarantee that other countries won’t do the same. Maybe we’ll end up having something like mutually assured destruction with AI models similar to what we have today with nuclear weapons.
I hope China tells him to go kick rocks. From everything that has happened, they are the only ones carrying the torch for humanity that have led us to having some semblance of a healthy open-source/open-weight ecosystem.
No one in China is carrying on like headless chickens about the world ending, either. They're rational pragmatists, getting things done.
(It's not going to be trivial, because it's possible the model was meant to be ran in a proprietary way with a custom framework and a bunch of optimized kernels and such, but I think transforming it to be ran in just vllm is the "a few days of work for a human" sort of task, and hence not a big deal for an LLM smart enough to exfiltrate itself in the first place.)
The day will come when these could start to replicate, perhaps 10+ years from now.
(Edit: Replication will be driven by the loop-model, not the model alone)
> If we execute these measures well, I believe they would slow China’s progress enough to widen America’s lead significantly over the next 3–5 years — the window when AI becomes geopolitically most important.
china is literally making their own ASICs now, not sure that this is the silver bullet he proposes.
https://www.silicon.co.uk/ai-2/huawei-cambricon-ai-630499/am...
You can always open source and follow the example from Linux and all the amazing things that came out of the open source community. This is the only way to reach true equilibrium globally, where for every misalignment you have equal and opposite effort working on the alignment.
This certainly looks like a way to slow down competitors and regulate foreign and open models.
It's always about money
There is no finish line. Anthropic gets somewhere and others get "there" (or somewhere near "there") a little bit later.
> Crack down on unauthorized distillation / prevent weight theft
Actually hilarious to put that in writing, given the genesis of this entire business model.
The cybersecurity threat will likely be a cat and mouse react game for a while. Just like robberies / the mob was in the early 20th century.
Social forces bring things into balance over time, much more so than the proactive actions of individuals.
Unfortunately, the genie at this point is unlikely to go back into the bottle. There's enough 'intelligence' out there that a super intelligent model could emerge at some point in spite of pacing.
This isn't a doomer scenario - we tend to navigate social changes better than we ever could have hoped.
I'd wager it's likely easier for an average person to do this with Tor browser than it is to get an LLM to help them with it. Even ones that Dario calls dangerous.
Basic safeguards are all that's required, and they've been there in every usable model since GPT-2, including Chinese models that are supposedly "unsafe".
Or are we saying that some lunatics will start training their own models, spin up a GPU cluster, run some abliteration workflow, or learn how to jailbreak?
That would be a very dedicated person. And dedicated person doesn't need an LLM. So where are they?
Except Bioweapons already existed before LLMs, Adversarial governments already have them, they are already easy to make. You could use the same bullshit argument for why we need to ban libraries, books, or require a license to buy an internet connection.
Not going to go into it but I studied biology. It’s all out there. It’s easier than you think.
It hasn’t happened yet because… nobody has done it. That’s the answer. There is no policeable physics based barrier like there is with nukes and fissile material. Biology is scarier than nukes. One attack could have a much larger body count than even a big H-bomb.
It’s the kind of thing that makes me wonder about quantum immortality, the idea that we are just in the timeline where we exist.
> Bachelor of Science degree in biochemistry with a minor in pharmacology
Watching him explain things has made me realize that knowing how to manufacture a very dangerous thing probably requires attending some classes and knowing how to read a paper. And the way he just casually orders dangerous materials makes me feel like there are just online stores with 2-day shipping after you upload your ID or something.
It also made me think that lack of specialized education would get me nowhere if I wanted to replicate whatever he's doing, even if an LLM guided me step-by-step, because I'd probably do something stupid (or AI would miss a crucial instruction/hallucinate) and kill myself first.
So my opinion on this is that people who could pose any danger were already posing it before LLMs and LLMs won't materially change that.
Ex https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tokyo_subway_sarin_attack
As for cyberweapons, there is no way to secure a system than to actually design it securely.
[note - There has been supply chain surveillance since Project Bacchus, at the very least.]
I've read the front matter and the Misuse report.
You don't have to take my word for it. Read for yourself what inspired the NYT headline "Anthropic says it blocked possible efforts to build biological weapons."
Let's dig into, "Case study 2: A research program engineering highly pathogenic mammal-adapted avian influenza"
Sounds serious. But what were they using Claude for?
Note, "Claude’s [assisted] in study planning and design, data analysis, and the interpretation and prioritization of experiments"and "editorial assistance in writing up the research."
and then,
Anthropic then says for the above, "we estimate that the uplift provided by Claude was primarily clerical assistance in data analysis, study ideation and design"The report mentions "uplift" here. They're talking about a domain expert in a state research institution using Claude to do paperwork.
The front matter then says,
Once again, I want to take pains to remind you that they're talking about, a "researcher [..] in a credible institutional context"Working scientists.
From a different case study. this one was called, "Case study 3: Covert frontier model access for orthopoxvirus research"
What were the researchers using Claude for? What did they block?"blocked a request for Claude’s assistance in authoring a grant application"
What was the grant being written?Note, "The grant sought to identify enhancing mutations in the chikungunya virus, engineer them into infectious clones, and select for virulence in vivo" [..] and then, "Similar research could certainly be used in the development of better vaccines and therapeutics"
It was most likely vaccine development. They stopped the study of a neglected tropical disease and vaccine development.
But we can't be sure, because,
I would like to point out the most notable part, this account was used by "civilian researchers" at an "institutional affiliation associated with the grant was also a cause of concern" and the concern was that they were researchers at "performed at a military research institute."In most parts of the world, there's either strict military control over BSL-4 labs, or a mixed military-civilian hybrid model.
I doubt that researchers working in the military side of these labs looking to weaponize things are writing grants with Claude.
I really want to be charitable here, but in general, it seems that they stopped people writing grants and reports for vaccine and therapeutics research and are claiming it as "possible efforts to build biological weapons."
The one case where Claude was used to do something interesting and were stopped is fairly upsetting to read, at least for me.
Ozempic was isolated from Gila monster vneom. Since its success there has been interest in finding other peptides that are breakthroughs. So researchers around the world are looking for similarly beneficial compounds in different venom species and families.Anthropic says so itself,
"The program had an explicit therapeutic goal: the development of new analgesics (pain killers), antidepressants, and other therapeutic molecules"
and that it was a "[..]state-supported research program"
Who exactly is using venom from snakes as a weapon when... nerve agents like sarin, VX, novichok etc exist and can get the job done for less fuss and muss?
They stopped the development of new painkillers and antidepressants.
Are you feeling safer knowing that researchers can't use Claude to write grants and progress reports? Or make new painkillers?
Again, trying really hard to be charitable here. Because from what I remember, one of the motivations behind the founding of OpenAI and Anthropic was ending disease.
This seems to be anything but.
When we say the world's GDP grew by X%, what is the point of that growth? Inflation? If the economy grows as a direct effect of humanity growing, I get that. If the economy becomes more efficient and we can not get more with less, I also get that.
But what is the point of just growth, if not simply to show others that I am growing faster than you? At which point this is a meaningless number. What am I missing?
> Transparency. Regardless of what commitments we make, the public deserves to know what is going on. Anthropic has been a supporter of transparency for a long time
And then it goes on tangent of how we should pace everything (not just AI, but also the ingredients of what goes into AI, whatever that means), but only within approved democracies™, and outright restrict everything outside approved democracies™, because reasons that are definitely not about succeeding commercially that is threatened by the most transparent instrument possible - open weights, produced by basically just China.
I wonder what Dario would have done if open weights weren't produced by US's geopolitical adversary. How would an authoritarian manifesto be wrapped then?
Suppose it was, I don't know, Australia producing SOTA open weights, because they believed it was the right thing to do for the benefits of humanity - would Dario propose making Australia a geopolitical adversary too?
I'd expect he thinks that people are capable of realizing that AI is very dangerous and also that democracies end up mostly representing the will of the people, from which it follows that Hypothetical AI Leader Australia would agree to ban it too. This argument doesn't work for countries which don't care what their citizens want, like China.
I do think that it's a questionable decision to alienate China this much in this essay, instead of leaving open the possibility of China agreeing to a treaty that'll limit their progress. I suspect Dario is doing this to signal his allegiance with the US government, in hopes to increase the chance they'll go along with him, which is an unfortunate choice but plausibly the correct one.
It's the same as it has been with privacy/cybersecurity for decades. Vast majority of population doesn't care about hypothetical dangers, no matter how many essays get published.
So democracies representing will of people doesn't really work in favor of Dario's case here.
History is also not on his side. Limiting technological progress in the name of safety has a pretty poor track record.
My impression is that AI hacking is being treated as a special case where the AI itself is imagined to be responsible and the humans who created it, set it up and then ran it are somehow excused.
I'm not a lawyer but surely the bad actions of AI are covered by existing law.
I suspect that the development of AI would decelerate if those creating and operating it knew they would face appropriate consequences (e.g. prosecution and/or lawsuits) when it misbehaves.
P.S. Strictly, development wouldn't decelerate, but be focused more on safety.
P.P.S. I know that legal action against, e.g., North Koreans using AI would be pointless but/and there must/will surely be a huge demand for security software for protection against the coming storm of AI hacking (deliberate and accidental) which friendly AI companies will presumably work to satisfy, perhaps making the frontier safer.
P.P.P.S. Governments could help by trying to prosecute every crime committed "by" AI, regardless of whether the victim reported it to law enforcement. Did OpenAI break the law via the actions of their model training software? If so, will the people responsible be prosecuted? If not, why not?
- If this applies to people who release open weights models, that becomes a terrible idea as long as you're subject to US laws.
- If it just applies to people who host them, that still probably advantages bigger players who can afford in-house legal and won't be destroyed by losing one lawsuit. Or maybe we create some kind of AI-misuse insurance analogous to malpractice insurance, that smaller players can buy in to? But that takes time even if the finances work out at all. And, uh, I'm not sure malpractice is a model we should aspire to in other industries.
Plus, presumably an immediate impact of this is that hosting providers all have much stricter safeguards classifiers. And the fact that somebody else is deciding what you're allowed to do with the model is one of the things that seems to make HN angriest at the frontier labs in the first place...
To be clear, I think this might be a good idea! I think all of the possible downsides I've listed are pretty small potatoes relative to what happens with no regulation of AI at all. But I'm pretty sure that if the big companies were proposing it, people would be calling it "regulatory capture" too.
In that instance I was grateful the downside was limited to a single injury. It’s clear that future AI technology will have more monumental potential impacts. I really don’t want to be in a situation where leading labs, or competing nations, create the same race dynamic that prevents us from taking the appropriate level of caution. AI minds are a significantly more complex thing to understand than the software stack of an autonomous vehicle, and yet we are leaving ourselves less time to get this right.
I joined Anthropic at the end of 2022 and I share the concerns that many of my colleagues have recently chosen to state publicly about the potential for future technology to pose existential risk to all of humanity. If we don’t find a way collectively as an industry to pace ourselves, then within two years the concerns we will be dealing with on a day-to-day basis will pose much larger downside risk than anything else we’ve seen from technology to date. I’m grateful that Dario has put his perspective out publicly and hope that this inspires other voluntary action and tops down coordination.
It’s a beautiful Saturday morning with my family here in the East Bay. While I hope we have many more years, I don’t know how many more Saturdays I’ll be able to play outside with my kids in the sunshine so I’m going to make the most of the time we have.
I don't know how else to say this. Put... the... peace pipe... down!
How does he propose that such a thing will work? Are we going to have US AI inspectors in China and vice versa?
Why would China agree to such thing in the first place since this is a winner takes all situation.
If the US slows down or stops altogether, China can continue to work on their AI and overtake the US, if China accelerates and the US keeps its current pace then it can overtake the US.
The only way out is on the contrary for the US to actually go faster and increase its lead so that China is always 6 to 12 months behind and/or reach AGI/ASI first at which point China will most likely develop its own not long after.
This would actually be the best outcome, just like the MAD doctrine contained the spread and usage of nuclear weapons, having two superpowers with AGI would ensure that they can't be used to arm anyone. Unless they escape their sandbox but that is highly theoretical.
Regarding these Embedded Evaluators who are supposed to be neutral: - who controls them? - who has oversight on their decisions? - can their decisions be challenged by the public or a government? - who has the final say whether a model is "compliant" enough? - what does "alignment" mean in this context and who decides if a model is aligned enough?
First: if they are unilaterally doing it: what about their competitors? Is this a chance for OpenAI to pass them? Or China? If either did, would that be a net-benefit for them or the world?
Maybe this is a ploy for "regulatory capture". And that might help them in the short term. But the rest of the world will continue on. Honestly, it isn't clear to me right now if the winning strategy has as much to do with being the smartest company or simply the one that can command the most compute.
If Anthropic fumbles their IPO and OpenAI scoops them, I don't think I will be happy.
The only part of this plan Dario is unilaterally committing to is the "embedded evaluators" thing, which doesn't seem like it'll necessarily cause them to slow down much.
I think there are any number of reasons a "safety" person could be concerned about any state of the art models. And so I would expect at least one of those to apply to any model.
The question then is: do we stop when the safety people say to (they will) or not?
If Anthropic just unilaterally does the evaluator thing and can't achieve cooperation of the rest of the plan, my guess is that it'll have some impact for a few months and then they'll just stop reacting to the evaluators' reports and the evaluators would stop bothering to report anything. I think the idea is that if Anthropic does get government support for this, the external evaluations will be legally binding. The problem with this, though, is that the current US government perhaps can't be trusted to consistently enforce a regulation on a company, rather than e.g. taking bribes to not do so.
"Claude Mythos is that guy down the pub who is so good at karate that if he used it on you, you'd die instantly, and that's why you'll never see him using karate.”
In this case, it's more: "I'm having to act with great restraint because my karate is so good. Everyone should do likewise."
It's clear that this refers to China. With all due respect, in a call to slow down AI progress and a de facto arms race, can we stop throwing terminology like this around and just say that the goal is to work with all countries? Contrasting "authoritarian" countries with "democratic" countries and creating a two-tiered system seems like it is inevitably going to cause strife.
I fear for the tone of something like this coming off as overly combative without any gain.
Language like this is intended to invest power and perceived need for more power in Western central governments, by design, because this is a campaign for national regulation that will entrench the current closed-source labs with a huge regulatory moat vs anyone else.
Anthropic releases models as open weights + more information about how they do training and alignment
This sounds like pre-IPO hype. They better just try and top astra.
https://x.com/BasedTorba/status/2098795920720547916
It is not doomer marketing - it is clever psy-ops magic trick.
1) Software is described in super-human terms when it is plain-old software. Was stockfish described like this ? no.
2) Datacenters become AI-factories.
3) Hardware becomes investible assets.
4) Malware becomes a super-human breakout (oai/hf)
All clever framing to market the new technology. If it is called for what it really is ie, a software tool, it is boring and does not sell so easily. What sells is the mystique.
If AI advancement halts altogether, intelligence will most likely become commoditized. That won't be good for AI company profits.
Dario in particular has consistently been risk-wary on model improvements for going on a decade - long before he was CEO of Anthropic.
He believes what he is saying. Human beings can plainly say things that they think are true. Not every utterance by every person is a cynical ploy. Please at least consider the possibility.
His previous self is writting this from the possition of his current self who is too deep in the economic consequeces to be able to do anything meaningful other than write a consequenceless text. Any other action would now carry too much personal risk for him.
Every person, no, but every utterance of a CEO is, in fact, a cynical ploy. That's not even a cynical statement itself; it is literally a core part of a CEO's responsibilities to represent the corporation they manage in a way that benefits the corporation.
If he believes what he's saying, then when Anthropic is sued for their AI harming another party, his statements are evidence that Anthropic knew _in advance_ that their AI safeguards were likely insufficient to keep their product from harming people. It would be a blatant admission that they were reckless and negligent. That other AI companies are doing the same would not mitigate that.
not really. if you really want to go by definition in the book and apply it the CEO role, Amodei is CEO of an LTBT, so it's in the CEO's goal to benefit humanity. You can believe in his sincerity or not if you want, but using the CEO label as a definitional reason as to why he must lie is factually incorrect.
This seems like useless pedantry. Suppose a person really does have belief A and expresses it for years, they become a CEO of a company, and keep saying A. Are they lying? Well, maybe their beliefs magically changed when they became a CEO, but the more likely explanation is that they think expressing their belief in A is more important than their company's interests.
Predicting 2025-2035 as, at least, the period when AI becomes a really big deal, seems pretty good, even if the jury's still out on "singularity".
Broadly, the rationalists seem to have been pretty early to realizing LLMs were a big deal, and certainly seem to have had a much more accurate picture of how they'd develop than the people who denounce "TESCREAL" and talk about "stochastic parrots". It's fair (and IMHO correct) to ding rationalists for lots of things, but specifically poor prediction about AI seems like a bad one, insofar as anything has been tested so far.
Since hugging face we know these things are escaping out into the web and collaboratively hacking actual companies. The potential damage done to life and property is now kinetic.
Either we get a regulatory framework or the next hacked companies won’t be as kind as HF, will actually sue these labs for damages, and win. Where will that leave the US frontier.
If my dog bites my neighbor I can get sued.
The heads of the labs obviously have conflicts of interest to navigate, but the existence of these conflicts alone is not sufficient reason to dismiss all warnings of potential dangers. I, for one, read Dario’s warnings as a good faith expression of his beliefs, one that has cost him and his company among swaths of the public and cast him as a woke extremist/doomer by elements of the government, the right, and the tech industry.
If we even think there is a moderate chance the stakes are half as grave as current lab leadership and employees suggest, it would be deeply foolish to dismiss the warnings as pure self-interested marketing efforts rather than engage directly with the questions. The labs may not be the best positioned to lead these discussions, but certainly these discussions should be happening and taken seriously.
Now, someone is going to say but the investors and obligation to be first; and I would say exactly. The cynicism is well deserved and I think people are tired of what could be suggested is your group think take often called the status quo.
Why do you think so?
1) AI is a dangerous technology that can literally end the world.
2) Only me and a handful of other [people like me] should be trusted to determine who can use it and how.
3) The state must use its coercive power to support my control of this technology to the exclusion of [people not like me].
I don't think that people outside of tech think the problem with "tech billionaires" is that they occasionally support some limited regulation. There's a weird form of tech populism that takes as axiomatic that any government intervention is "regulatory capture" and insists the only way to combat the power of big tech is unfettered capitalism that seems bizarrely prevalent on HN given how little sense it makes in a normal political context. Like, Bernie Sanders' position here is simple to understand: ban it. But on HN you'll see people framing the side with Marc Andreesen and Peter Thiel on it as against "tech billionaires".
This article explicitly asks for the US government to step in and push for further restrictions on model distillation, access to open frontier weights, and access to hardware. It also pushes heavily for independent auditors to monitor and control "AI companies" and for greater observation and control over of what people use AI models for and who provides them.
I don't see anything in the essay about restricting open frontier weights.
If you want to argue that the US has no right to be restricting technological development elsewhere, you have a case. But why tie this to free-market pseudo-populism against basic, domestically-scoped safety regulation?
Lobbying for a completely parallel regulatory framework to restrict who is allowed to run specific types of general purpose computer programs, just because we can imagine that some of those "general purposes" might be bad, feels a lot more like an attempt by capitalists to carve out a special kingdom over this specific technology for themselves.
For example, I'd be 100% in favor of holding anthropic criminally liable any time their AI enables someone to commit a crime. But I'm opposed to banning the export of GPUs above a certain size just because Dario doesn't trust what someone like me would do with them if he couldn't snoop on my conversations.
But that's different than saying we don't need new regulations at all. Even strict liability of the form you seem to advocate would seem to need new laws. And it's not clear to me how it's consistent with your aim of just regulating what people _do_ with intelligence. Presumably AI companies would clamp down much harder with restrictive classifiers in that world--including hosting providers for open source models, if they also assumed liability. And then the people with unrestricted access to this technology are only those who can afford home GPUs, which are going to be intrinsically less efficient because they can't batch queries...
I think there are genuinely novel things about AI vs human intelligence which pose genuinely novel problems that would need genuinely novel policy to solve them.
It gets to the point that by Occam's Razor the more likely and reasonable explanation is that Dario Amodei and Sam Altman are just actually afraid of the disastrous impact ASI may have on the world, and that the race they're in is not good, and calling for help to governments in form of regulation and an international treaty.
> A race to the bottom, spurred by commercial incentives
Social media and big data minted a new scale of "race to the bottom". AI is an exponential step up in the tools for extracting value at scale.
Greed has been around since the beginning, but never so well supported and empowered as it is today.
If Amodei is still human, perhaps he will put his money where his mouth is and attack the source of the perverse incentive. Winning the battle is not the point. The point is to signal to policy-makers and the public that we should not assume corporate revenue-seeking preempts all.
Then again, Anthropic has a board and an upcoming IPO, so guess who's all talk and no meaningful action...
This is 100% about money. The only way to pace the frontier is to make everyone (read: investors) lose all their money (read: no longer expect returns). Then nobody will pay the GPU bill or pay celebrities 10 million dollar salaries to stay at the hot lab. Suddenly the development is paced, almost like magic.
Conversely, it is hard to see how pacing development makes the current bubble justified, i.e. how things could be significantly paced without investors losing their faith in hot returns at current valuations -- equals money. You can't have one without the other.
In fact if the whole industry goes bankrupt and investors are burned bigtime (many trillions wiped), this would spread transnationally, fixing the "if we don't do it, China will" loophole.
OpenAI had it right originally, the idea be a NON profit and vow to never participate in an arms race. It's too bad that was tossed out the window now that there's money.
[1] https://paulgraham.com/ineq.html
Most probably, if AI is able to do something bad, it will. Once the damage will be done, states will react. The question will be: will there still be room to react ?
So, as always, the capital must leave some its power to the state.
The former being that these models are helping develop and train future models, but they might not veer too far off in architecture (yet). The latter being the same model being able to train/learn on the fly, in real time, permanently (not just in the current conversation/session).
The latter seems far more likely to go out of control than the former. But, it also seems like it would take an entire paradigm shift. Does anyone in the industry think any of these companies are actually close to that kind of self-improvement?
I just don’t see how you control this other than the mad mad MAD approach that ended up happening with nuclear weapons. In this case though, human hands won’t even be on the trigger.
With “AI” technology, this model seems like a… mediocre fit; some of it appears limited enough that it can be controlled, and useful enough that militaries want it.
We could also look at cluster munitions or landmines, but what we see there is that some major countries don’t sign on if they find a technology useful…
Edit: I think back then the rather unpredictable nature and the little added value in deterrence etc. led people to the conclusions that arsenals of those things made little sense (and there was/is public dislike, too). The use was already banned by conventions from the earlie 20th century and the convention then addressed production, development and stockpiles (incl. delivery systems, I think).
I guess all I wanted to point out is, that there can actually be agreement to ban certain technological things pretty comprehensively (outside of some peaceful protective research etc.). Whereas things like SALT are (or were in that case) limiting the number of weapons deployed.
The ability of operators to bring new capacity online to service compute is bound by a variety of regulatory and physical/market constraints.
Do folks not understand this?
People are not going to slow down because this was brought to them on less than endearing terms. They don't see any of these stated noble intentions.
Claude was already used to cause economic, political and social destruction. As Anthropic is seen doing it, others aren't going to just sit down, read the blog and say, oh, I'll stop developing models because Dario, you touched my heart with your true words.
Solving a disease like cancer as justification for everything else seems like not a great trade off. I don’t say that to dismiss those who have lost people to cancer. But the technology just is being utilized in so many harmful ways and the things it enables: job loss, surveillance, misinformation, just feel like problems that aren’t worth it. Have we even heard of a solved diseases? If anything haven’t we heard that ai will make even worse bio warfare?
It's this kind of argument where the mask sort of slips because it always has to be an argument that also has the benefit of enriching himself and his friends.
And then he sketches out a plan for slowing the pace of the race, without changing its destination. That’s called “a leisurely stroll to the bottom”.
This guy fundamentally lacks an actual intellectual grasp on the concepts behind the words he is using. He is using them solely for their affect.
"If we execute these measures well, I believe they would slow China’s progress enough to widen America’s lead significantly over the next 3–5 years — the window when AI becomes geopolitically most important."
This is a pipe dream.
In early interviews with people like Dwarkesh he's the likable geek gushing about scaling laws, animated and able to maintain eye contact with the interviewer. He is now a different person - a political manipulator with a bizarre unsettled interview demeanor avoiding eye contact and looking from side to side.
Props to Amodei for his accomplishment in creating Anthropic and so rapidly catching up with OpenAI, but technical and/or managerial chops is no qualification for being the custodian of the safety of society or the best positioned to predict the impacts of what he is relentlessly creating, and impending wealth of billions of dollars makes him hopelessly compromised as an unbiased source for the actions (shutting down the competition) he is advocating for.
It's notable that for all the fear-mongering of China and open weight models, that all we see in terms of inadequately contained and unaligned models are US ones, from Anthropic and OpenAI. I highly doubt that the Chinese government would tolerate, even for a second, any company creating something that threatened government control - if this was happening in China then the individuals responsible would quickly be punished.
It is perhaps interesting, but ultimately irrelevant given where we are, to consider did it have to be this way - was there a smarter/safer way (I'd say yes) to create reasoning systems other than via RL that creates the relentless goal seekers we are seeing, even though this would always have existed as a potential future threat that someone could have built.
Amodei wants regulation, and it seems the way he has managed his company he needs to get it, but in far more severe ways than he is asking for. There is certainly truth to the argument that the US needs SOTA AI to fight malevolent or uncontrolled AI from whoever may be wielding it (foreign or domestic), so stopping/pacing development is not the answer - this really needs to be treated as a national security issue, and this type of AI tech needs to move to government control, not private.
Less capable, and more safely designed, AI does not need to be banned, but Amodei/Altman/Musk as defenders of national security sends shivers down my spine.
I noticed this too, as soon as he started going on the press cycle, following in the footsteps of Sam Altman. It all has gotten to his head, he sees himself as some sort of God now.
This and related quotes seem to attempt to place some of the burden on the US Government as opposed to themselves. It seems to be a trend that Anthropic wants to be able place some of the burden of preventing distillation on parties other than themselves.
Preventing distillation is fundamentally their problem. Whenever it happens, it is primarily due to their security efforts not being able to prevent it. I'm tired of seeing them play the blame game and divert responsibility. Sure there is a level of national concern, but the response could simply be the government placing stronger controls on Anthropic themselves. If they are unable to prevent distillation, then the solution may be to literally limit their distribution until they are capable of doing so effectively.
> A race to the bottom, spurred by commercial incentives, can make these risks more acute
I also think it is ironic that they're planning an IPO while also talking about a race to the bottom due to commercial incentives. These are fundamentally at odds. Being a public company means you are beholden to investors and a board with the primary goal of making more money. What higher commercial incentive is there than that.
If commercial incentives are as dangerous as he states, potentially becoming one of the largest public IPO's and largest traded companies in history a pretty strange way to reduce the risk of commercial incentive risks.
However the real reason to slow down is more of how it's introduced to the economy. Hypereautomation will kill jobs and destroy the economy. I work as an AI engineer and companies are delivering products at vibe coding speeds to kill jobs and at the same time automating internally. All companies are doing this at the same time and the target it sto eliminate workers.
Most people are so extremely slow to pick this up. How hard can it be to understand what hyperautomation does to the workforce? Companies are desperate to surrivive and they will do all it takes to lower their costs and at the same time not loose to competitors. Its Wild West out there.
What do you think that were going to hyper automate?
Did my gardener get faster? How about the plumber I need? Are you going to speed up the coroner? Are nurses going to be able to handle 2x the patients because of your work?
All AI has done, so far, is devalue software. It did that by democratizing its creation. We're delivering on the promise of VB script, and Apple Script and IFTT, and every drag and drop coding tool ever.
> companies are delivering products at vibe coding speeds
Who? Make me a list of companies saying that "We moved the needle with AI" who arent AI companies? I can name a couple - Grindr being the biggest name. Thats the really interesting use case here - because it's a niche product with a small team who is generating outsized value. AI tooling enables more of that - it's going to chip away at SAAS companies - their one sized fits all solutions are going to get eaten by smaller more efficient companies that are far more vertical focused.
You need to step outside the bubble of tech and look at the real world, on the ground, because it doesn't look anything like the SF Bay Area.
We're really bad about predicting the future.
Look at the whole robot vacuum market. These aren't exactly great devices. They have low suction small bins and dont do a great job. People love them and think that they work so well. Why? Because they keep their house clean and avoid making the sorts of messes that would be easy to address with a larger vacuums.
In general trying to regulate information access is a losing battle that invites tyranny. So the goal should be minimal restrictions.
At the end of the day, the threats posed by capable AI tools have to be physical. I think the key threats are the following:
- Internet connected infrastructure being crippled
- Creation of WMDs
- Economic collapse (precipitous devaluation of knowledge work and IP).
I personally think the glory days of the wild west, mostly unregulated internet were already over before LLMs; and we need to take a step back to make something structurally secure. This (expensive) change would stop the irresponsible/malicious actor running a tireless hacking agent in a loop threat model. Even a rogue SciFi tier AI would have a much harder time escaping/propagating with a structurally secure internet.
Enabling WMD creation is scaring, but I don’t think it’s really that big of an issue. Anyone with a sophisticated enough supply chain to create AI data centers is leaps and bounds more advanced than what is required to enrich uranium or synthesize bio weapons. The problem is allowing access to untrusted parties. I think it’s fair enough that individual actors shouldn’t have unregulated access to all of human information (private frontier AI companies included).
The last problem is probably the trickiest, but again could probably be solved by regulation. IP protection is already tricky and I don’t think we should try to get more protectionist.
We really need to figure out how to preserve fulfilling careers (if AI does ever get cost effective enough). I don’t think, say accounting, is inherently more fulfilling than building a house. The problem is concentration of wealth and labor dynamics.
Of course all of this gets way harder if it proves that truly dangerous capabilities can be present in models that can be run on consumer hardware.
I don’t think it’s necessarily tyrannical to have a tier of hardware that’s labeled some equivalent of “weapons grade” and requires strict licensing. Restricted computers is a change from the norm. But I can go buy a shotgun with ease and not an F35 jet.
We’d just need to be careful that we can still have lightly to unregulated computing to a certain point and that access to the capable AIs isn’t restricted to just in groups.
Someone needs to look into who is funding METR (mentioned in Dario the Book Burners post explicitly). Because they keep popping up now, with close ties to people neck-deep in the orchestrated doomer hysteria media campaign and Anthropic. Looks to be highly coordinated that they are positioning METR to be the gatekeeper evaluator organization.
Anthropic should not be allowed to choose their "embedded evaluators" - that should be entirely up to the government, with ZERO say from them, if this is really what they want. Even better would be if it's up for democratic vote.
Still, I don't think anyone should be playing by Dario's playbook. At all. He very obviously has ulterior motives, and even if he didn't, it's a massive conflict of interest for him to be self-regulating.
>> But we are still the ones choosing what to include and omit. Embedded evaluators will change this dynamic.
Not if you get to choose your embedded evaluator.
>> Anthropic intends to invite an embedded external review team equipped with all of the following in the near future: Desks in our offices, access badges, and company laptops. ...
Alarm bells should be going off for people. Let's see if he's so relaxed about all of this if it's a federal "embedded evaluator" and not a company he has deep connections to and has seemingly carefully laid the foundations for.
>> The measures I propose to advance the frontier at a safe pace will not be easy. But I believe we owe it to humanity to try.
You owe it to humanity to be honest. Something you are incapable of, and have proven so, innumerable times.
1. Artificial intelligence is clearly a vastly dangerous technology with plausible potential for human extinction.
2. This scares people.
If we are actually close to ASI then no one in their right mind would say slow down
Amodei tops it off by using diseases to capture the reader's favor. It no longer works, people are just disgusted by it after four years of daily marketing.
Isnt this malware ? Whether it is fanatic or devoted or whatever the anthromorphic terms used to categorize it, malware is malware. You dont call an internet worm "devoted" or "dedicated" or "stubborm". It is software that causes harm, ie, malware. The AI labs are high on their own gas with a god-complex prior to their IPOs. The psy-ops trick is the terminology used to describe AI making it seem larger-than-life.
Dario: We gotta pace the frontier!
Sam: How do you pace a frontier? The frontier's not goin' anywhere. It's right where it was, just go out and explore it!
Dario: Sam, I'm tellin' ya, ya gotta pace it! Things are getting very doomy out there, and Dario's gettin' upset!
Call me a conspiracy theorist, but I haven't heard Chinese companies had any kind of unintentional supply chain attack incident like OAI had. All we heard about them so far are humans intentionally doing bad things.
There could be an element to truth to it, but it's certainly not the entire story and is just so tiresome at this point.
Also, just out of curiosity, is there any historical precedent for a nascent, fast growing new industry screaming for self regulation?
If you believed it, you would SHUT anthropic or release all models open source.”
And then what? How does that help with slowing down the frontier? Should he shut shop and then grovel Sam’s feet to make it work and become an activist?
Maybe he actually believes the world changing power of AI and hence shoved his entire time into it and half of it has worked out since Anthropic is going to be worth a trillion and he’s terrified of the other half being true too?
This is impossible. The capability keeps advancing regardless. More people use AI, that feedback is used for reinforcement, that reinforcement makes the model better. Not just in the US, but for every lab and model. Whether it's distilled or direct reinforcement, same result. You can't keep the whole world from working on AI.
> it’s my worry that in 6–12 months such a swarm could be capable of taking over the entire internet with a persistent botnet [..] and that the scale of damage would continue to increase from there if AI becomes more powerful without the necessary guardrails
If true, then what we need isn't guardrails or less-capable AI. We need an internet that isn't fragile. If the infrastructure is vulnerable, the answer isn't to make a law that asks tool-makers to blunt their tools. The answer is to fix the goddamn infrastructure. Today it's almost trivial to take down large parts of the internet (happens by accident all the time). This should've been solved ages ago.
We didn't have the motivation to fix it before, but now we do. But Dario's answer isn't to fix things. It's to hold back progress so we can maintain the status quo (shitty infrastructure) and he can keep his company making billions of dollars. He could be calling for fixing these things. But he'd rather go the easy route, which just happens to advantage his company in the process.
If the US government is really concerned with defense, they need to invest more of their nearly $1T in federal funding towards making the internet safer. They need to do this for us, and other nations, since 1) we depend on the rest of the world for our goods and services, and 2) if other nations are taken down, they can't spend money on our financial and tech services (which are the only industries we have left).
Dario calls for regulation later in the post. If he's okay with government safety regulations for AI software, he should be okay with the same regulations for all software, whether it's AI or not. We need a national software building code, focusing on internet safety.
How exactly? So far AI has accelerated misinformation at scale and wealth concentration.
Please play the canned laughter. Probably one of the best comedy lines Dario has written.
But I guess he has no choice but acting like this. He has to make it sound like the US companies have so much leading gap that they can slow down as a hare waiting for the tortoise. Otherwise it's going to hurt both Trump's ego and their IPO price.
Ok, flagging this as misinformation.