“How can AI be a threat if it can’t do these n things.” *capabilities improve* “How can AI be a threat if it can’t do these n-1 things.” *capabilities improve* “How can AI be a threat if it can’t do these n-2 things.” *capabilities improve* “How can AI be a threat if- 📎📎📎📎📎

Long story short I recommend the new book by Nate and Eliezer. I feel like the main thing I ever get cancelled/ in trouble - is for is talking to people with ideas that other people don't like. And I feel a big problem in our culture is that everyone feels they must ignore

The difficulty of enforcing an international ban on ASI is inversely correlated with how well the world understands the danger. If we get to a point where a treaty is being negotiated, that would mean the world understands the danger more than it does now.

Where are the folks who were pearl-clutching about the idea that nations should be willing to airstrike a rogue datacenter to enforce a global AI moratorium? They must be extremely distraught about Iran's nuclear facilities being destroyed.

NEW: The "OpenAI Files" are out today from The Midas Project & The Tech Oversight Project, an interactive site -- which amounts to more than 50 pages and over 10,000 words -- that chronicles OpenAI’s evolution from nonprofit research lab to moneymaking household name. theverge.com/openai/688783/…

Sam Altman is reaching never-before-seen levels of sugarcoating “If something goes wrong, it’s that we build legitimate superintelligence and it doesn’t make the world much better”

Move fast and break things down into atoms which can be used for something else

Some huge book endorsements today — from retired three-star general Jack Shanahan, former DHS Under Secretary Suzanne Spaulding, security expert Bruce Schneier, Nobel laureate Ben Bernanke, former US NSC Senior Director Jon Wolfsthal, geneticist George Church, and more!

A lot more people are starting to understand that superintelligence is on the horizon and that it poses a serious risk of human extinction. This gives me hope that coordination is possible!

I don't understand Elon Musk's framing re there being two options: participant that accelerates or passive spectator. Feels unusually fatalistic for someone so high agency. He didn't just accept e.g. climate change - he founded Tesla and changed the direction of the whole system

I want to hear your questions/objections to this view. You can share them in this thread, or DM me. I have a lot of respect for anyone willing to earnestly engage with important and complex topics like this one.

The incentives of this platform make everything feel like some kind of battle but I want you to know that I'm a friendly and socially cooperative guy that just really doesn't want all of us to be killed by AI

Which would you prefer? 1. Life on Earth continues to exist 2. Life on Earth ends in the 21st century

In the earliest days of COVID, most of the world ignored the increasingly loud signs of looming disruption. People ignored it up until their grocery stores were empty and their loved ones were ill. That is what is happening now with AI, but much, much worse.

Senior White House officials, a retired three-star general, a Nobel laureate, and others come out to say that you should probably read Eliezer Yudkowsky and Nate Soares' "If Anyone Builds It, Everyone Dies". Preorders are live.