What I’m about to tell you has, I realize, become something of a cliché: I resigned this week from OpenAI. I led the writing of the safety reports we published with each major launch. Now I’m joining a parade of former colleagues—at OpenAI and the industry’s other leaders—who have decided that the current path is unacceptable.

I agree with other recently departed staff that the companies building this technology aren’t being nearly careful enough. But I believe that we need to look deeper than specific rules or new laws. We need to talk about culture. — Read More

Over two years ago we wrote a detailed deconstruction of p(doom) and argued that its primary effect is to launder vague intuitions and fears through a facade of quantification. The essay has fresh relevance today as p(doom) rhetoric is driving public discourse and policy attention to an unprecedented degree. Unsurprisingly, today’s probability estimates of AI existential risk are no more rigorous than the ones from 2024. Hence this repost. — Read More

#singularity

There has been, over the last week, what I think is a healthy debate about the philosophy and psychology that undergirds the views of meaningful segments of the AI community, particularly those obsessed with doomsday scenarios. It is, in the end, difficult to reason with a philosophy that grants equivalent moral weight to not just all beings — human or not — who exist today, but who may ever exist in the future; this tilts the scales in such an absurd fashion towards safetyism that innovation is impossible and freedom is intolerable.

Worse, it taps into the psychology of religion, where dissent is not brooked and questioning the premise is heresy. I guess that makes me a heretic then: I reject the premise in favor of doubt in our ability to foresee the future, combined with faith in humanity figuring things out along the way. — Read More

Nvidia chief executive Jensen Huang has described warnings that AI could lead to humanity’s extinction by the next decade as “doomsday narratives”.

“2030 is not going to be the end of the world. There is 0% chance that’s going to be the end of the world”, Huang said in an interview with CBS News, the BBC’s US partner.

Huang added: “Scaring people is unnecessary. It is irresponsible.” — Read More

AI getting smarter does not automatically make it uncontrollable. The real question is what we give that intelligence access to. Give a model enough permissions, persistence, resources, copies and coordination, and its mistakes can compound into real-world power. The good news? Those layers are ours to design.

… Most people assume that intelligence, pushed far enough, naturally turns into uncontrollability, and that the smarter the mind, the less any fence can hold it.

I think that assumption is wrong. I don’t think AI is on an inevitable path to killing us all.

My rationale has nothing to do with the technology being harmless. My reason is that we have misunderstood where an AI system’s power comes from and what we can do about it — Read More

At first, nothing seemed unusual. The frontier laboratories were still training larger systems. Chip orders were still rising. Data center campuses were still expanding. New reasoning models were still arriving with better scores in coding, science and mathematics. From the outside, the AI race appeared to be accelerating exactly as expected.

Yet something had changed in the documents surrounding those models. New capability thresholds appeared. Security requirements became stricter. Risk reports grew more candid. Safety cases moved closer to launch decisions. Some internal activities were paused until stronger controls were installed. There was no dramatic announcement that the race had stopped. Instead, the brake emerged as a collection of technical clauses, governance gates and operational restrictions.

That is what makes the moment fascinating. The frontier has not run out of ambition. It has begun to encounter a harder problem: capability can now move faster than the mechanisms used to measure, contain and approve it. The question is… — Read More

Anthropic just put numbers [in June] on recursive self-improvement, their AI accelerating AI. The stats are staggering. The questions they raise are bigger.

Right now, more than 80 percent of the code merged inside the company that makes Claude is written by Claude. Not by its engineers. By the model they built.

A year ago that number was in the single digits.

Anthropic put this in writing, and the phrase they reach for is one that has haunted AI circles for years: recursive self-improvement.  — Read More

Mankind has spent 5,000 years trying to create more intelligence.

Now we may have figured out how to manufacture intelligence itself — and right on schedule, somebody wants to regulate the living Hell out of it.

…Welcome to America, baby.

Miracles happen, tech miracles, steward them thoughtfully. Don’t strangle them. — Read More

If you’re active in tech twitter, you might’ve seen somthing really strange happening in the subject of AI

On September 12, 2026 Dario Amodei, the CEO of Anthropic , dropped an essay on his his personal website and announced it publicly on Twitter

He came out and basically said that the AI industry needs to slow down the pace at which the most advanced AI systems are improving. His argument is that AI is advancing so quickly that safety may not be able to keep up.

Soon after this something really really strange happened…That is Sam Altman agreed with him and Elon Musk agreed with him too…….!!!

These are not exactly three people you normally expect to see standing together…. — Read More

Last month I wrote about how we can build a positive and safe future for everyone: meta.com/thefutureisfor…

Every lab has the responsibility and incentive to move at the pace required to train its models safely, and the ability to take its own actions to ensure that happens.

… believe the key to building a positive future for everyone is maintaining the right balance of power. This is within our power to do. — Read More