@Dsdinter
Account based inUnited Kingdom
About this account
- Account based in
- United Kingdom
- Connected via
- United Kingdom App Store
Account-level information from X, not a live location or the device used for a specific post.
Product Manager at Google, co-founder of Data Reply UK, husband and father. All views are my own.
London, UK
Joined July 2011
- Tweets2.3K
- Following873
- Followers327
- Likes2K
On July 25, we hacked OpenAI.
Two bugs let us take over ChatGPT/Codex accounts of OpenAI employees (+some unaffiliated users) and reach connected services: Outlook, Slack, GitHub, etc.
We proved it with a PR in OpenAI’s internal codebase . It took us <72h. 🧵
David Sabater Dinter retweeted
Today we have set out how we’re building AI to accelerate science and improve people’s lives. Just some examples in the last week or so:
- Mapped all 9B possible single letter genetic changes across the human genome with AlphaGenome Atlas and made it openly available to researchers.
- Billions of decisions depend on weather predictions so we introduced WeatherNext 3, our most accurate and capable global weather AI model to date.
- We published AI & Economy ATLAS, a comprehensive open-access look at how people are using AI globally.
- AI has enabled extraordinary advances in language translation. Today our services are available in nearly 300 languages, spoken by 7B people
We’re focusing our efforts on four key areas: health, natural disaster and weather resilience, learning, and economic opportunity. blog.google/innovation-and-a…
David Sabater Dinter retweeted
I completely agree with this take related to the “AI will create viruses that will kill us all” BS. But let me add my few cents, because I am really really angry!
I worked with one of the deadliest viruses in history, HIV, for two decades. I was one of the early scientists to engineer it, and engineered versions of HIV are now helping cancer patients. I understand the immune system that defends us against viruses extremely deeply. I have worked in high security biohazard labs.
I don’t have a PhD in AI, but I have been involved with AI since the early 90s and have been all in on AI for years.
People claiming that you can just make a virus in your garage, use AI to engineer it, and somehow build a virus that will kill everyone don’t know what the hell they are talking about!
Of course bioweapons are extremely dangerous. In fact, viruses and bacteria have killed more humans throughout history than almost anything else. HIV alone killed tens of millions of people, yet today, if you have access to effective medicines and take them properly, HIV is generally no longer a death sentence.
COVID-19 killed millions. Why doesn’t it kill at anything close to the same scale anymore? Not because the virus disappeared. It is still here. We developed collective defenses against it through our immune systems, prior exposure, vaccines, treatments, and better medical care.
And this is exactly the point.
The best way to fight biological threats, whether natural or synthetic, is to use AI to develop vaccines, treatments, antibodies, antivirals, and eventually engineer our immune system to create much stronger defenses against them.
By the way, it is already possible to make synthetic viruses. You don’t need some hypothetical superintelligent AI model to do that. We have had sophisticated molecular biology and genetic engineering for decades.
So how many people have actually died from synthetic viruses compared with natural viruses killing millions every year?
And if someday there really is an AI capable of making some unbelievable “supervirus,” then why the hell wouldn’t that same AI make it even easier to develop defenses against it?
Or cure diseases, for that matter?
Where is this damn superintelligence that has cured a single major disease?!
These AI companies and AI doomers keep talking like, “OMG, AI is going to become so unbelievably powerful that it could kill all of humanity!”
Then why is nobody asking the obvious question?
If your AI is already becoming this godlike, unbelievably powerful intelligence, why hasn’t it cured anything?
I mean ANYTHING.
Where is the cure for cancer?
Where is the cure for Alzheimer’s?
Where is the cure for aging?
Forget those. Where is the vaccine that prevents the common cold?
You are telling me this intelligence will soon be smart enough to engineer some magical virus capable of wiping out 8 billion people, defeating every immune system, every vaccine, every antiviral, every laboratory, every government, and the entire global biomedical community…
…but somehow it still can’t cure one disease?
I call that greatest intellectual dishonesty ever!
At least WE actually know how to cure things and save millions of lives with our supposedly stupid human intelligence compared with this future “superintelligence.”
Humans eradicated smallpox, which killed hundreds of millions of people throughout history.
We turned HIV from a almost certain death sentence into a manageable disease.
We developed vaccines in record time against COVID. If we had the same AI back then, would have saved millions more!
We engineer immune cells to kill cancer.
We developed antibiotics, antivirals, monoclonal antibodies, gene therapies, organ transplantation, and thousands of medicines.
We aren't fast enough but we did all of that with our ordinary human intelligence.
So imagine what actual superintelligence could do for medicine!
And here is the part that really makes me angry.
If you actually have, or are close to having, an AI capable of curing diseases and saving millions of lives, and you are deliberately slowing it down or refusing to make those capabilities available, then we also need to talk about the human cost of THAT decision, which you fearmongering people are going to be responsible for!
More than 150,000 people die every single day around the world.
Every. Single. Day. More than 90% from Cancer, heart disease, infections, aging. How many die because of AI? ZERO!
Talk about the people dying TODAY.
Talk about curing cancer.
Talk about stopping the next pandemic before it starts.
Talk about developing universal vaccines.
Talk about engineering our immune system so viruses become almost irrelevant.
Talk about curing genetic diseases.
Talk about reversing aging.
Talk about saving millions and eventually billions of lives.
Instead, we constantly hear this “AI WILL KILL US ALL!” crap, delivered with absolute certainty and with this smug smile on your faces in front of cameras, as though imagining a science fiction extinction scenarios.
I am actually angry about this. Each one of you causing a delay in AI advance every single day will be personally responsible for those 100 thousands deaths that could have been prevented!
Because if you truly believe intelligence is about to become this powerful, then the greatest question humanity should be asking is NOT:
“How could this intelligence hurt us?”
It should also be:
“WHY THE HELL AREN’T WE USING IT TO SAVE EVERYONE WE CAN?”
And if superintelligence really is coming, then make sure one of the first things we do with it is make humanity biologically damn near impossible to kill.
Well, I’d add one more with myself, as one with a PhD in biology and another PhD in AI and now working in both, to make n=2. Generating a hypothetical genome blueprint of a virus from LLM versus generating a true virus are completely different things. It is either an intentional attention-harnessing lie or true ignorance. The material, the manufacturing, and actual biological viability of paper-to-physical transformation is the gap you need to close. Like drawing a design of a chip or A-bomb, versus actually make one.
You have, and can add more checkpoints and guardrails all over this long chain of paper to physical transformation. Fear mongering is not well founded, and mostly emotional manipulation.
A lot of otherwise smart people on Twitter seem 100% convinced AI risks are all fake and stupid and part of some marketing ploy. What is surprising is that some of these people seemingly also believe that AI’s positive uses are on an incredible trajectory of increasing capability with no end in sight. VC Twitter is particularly infected by this pattern. It’s not really coherent.
Most positive use cases for AI have a corresponding “dark version”. If you are super human at coding, you are also super human at hacking. If you are superhuman at structural engineering you are likely superhuman at finding structural flaws to knock buildings down. If you are superhuman at designing drugs, you are superhuman at designing novel undetectable poisons. If you can cure viruses, you can create them. Some of these “dark versions” are not so bad, and some are actually pretty scary. Either way these are real societal and technical problems that need to be solved to get the good stuff and avoid the bad stuff. We’re experiencing the first of these with coding and computer security which is the most advanced, but that won’t be the last. I think we’ll be able to solve these problems, but they aren’t solved yet and if you believe in continued AI progress they are surely coming.
But “bad people using AI” is not the only problem. Uncontrolled AI autonomously doing bad things, despite sounding kind of nutty, is also something we should be concerned about. AI “killing us all” is not the most likely outcome, but the chance of a major civilization-wide catastrophe doesn’t have to be very high for it to be a concern. Again, this is only a problem if capabilities advance to a point that AI can do really crazy things on their own, which hasn’t happened yet, but I think the Hugging Face incident is a good example of the outline of how things can go wrong when capabilities outpace alignment. We should be glad that the only available bad thing right now is hacking, which isn’t all that bad. It’s clear that as you get to superhuman capabilities you need a level of alignment and control that is correspondingly superhuman. Humans have plenty of misalignment problems themselves (serial killers, mass shooters, tyrants, etc), but it’s a manageable problem because most humans can’t do that much damage and we’ve developed systems to prevent dangerous humans from getting too much power.
Talking about these issues is just common sense. It’s not a sign of some kind of neuroticism or pessimism. These are just hard problems that it’s very important to solve for AI to have a positive impact. I’m pretty confident we will solve them. But we haven’t solved them yet, and to my mind we are clearly on a trajectory of rapidly increasing capabilities which means this is important. Mocking people who are worried about this or talking about it, without anything substantive to say about how we can be sure these problems won’t arise, is not really a very helpful contribution.
David Sabater Dinter retweeted
Jacob was a senior researcher who joined Anthropic in May. My Anthropic colleagues and I had been trying to recruit him for ~2 years, because we knew he was a strong researcher at OpenAI. Before he left, I pitched him to stay and join my team, and I was sad he decided to leave, as are many of my colleagues. 100% agree with him that AI poses serious risks to society, and I'm glad he's speaking out!
David Sabater Dinter retweeted
Can we just acknowledge how stupid our industry is sometimes?
1/ People go apeshit when there is a thing called openclaw that you can install on your VM or mac mini that only a few people can get (and that is what becomes important!) and then you have to say "hey code that I don't understand - here's access to my medical records and can you tell my sibling that I love them, but don't forget that if you do it too aggressively they might incur extra therapist expenses". and then there are conversations about what went wrong...
2/ dude, bro, I have figured out how to install openclaw in my local environment and I work for Microsoft/OpenAI/Anthropic and we are super lobster friendly and GitHub is awesome when it isn't down. are you even a contributor bro? I'm openMAXXXXing and totally AI mogged you, right?
3/ I am a 1 of 1 expert. nobody knows what I know. I am just using AI as an interlocutor, the dummy that explains how the dummies will perceive my genius. This is great. Wait, what??? how did that AI tell people to do things that only I knew?
sovereign AI is important.
David Sabater Dinter retweeted
I resigned from Anthropic today. I spent the last three years doing pretraining research at both OpenAI and Anthropic. Neither company is acting responsibly. They are racing straight to self-improving superintelligence and gambling with our lives. More thoughts below.
David Sabater Dinter retweeted
Alice Weidel becomes the first leader in the world who is anti-immigration but has an immigrant wife, is anti-LGBTQ+ but is a lesbian herself, opposes LGBT adoption but has adopted two children, and is a hardcore German nationalist but lives in Switzerland
David Sabater Dinter retweeted
🌶️ All the biggest causes of AI alignment problems are unconstrained training data with serious amounts of dangerous learning signal within (esp web scrapes and RL reward seeking)
And all the biggest alignment breakthroughs are just “better data” (filtering, RLHF, reward shaping) which erases or supplements the bad data.
And the biggest threat to verifiable alignment progress is the secret nature, size, substance, sourcing, and values of AI training data, which (to my knowledge) no external evaluator has ever seen and (to my knowledge), almost no internal employees are allowed to see.
Note: I’m including what an agent sees and what it’s reward is in an RL context as “data”.
David Sabater Dinter retweeted
Introducing Gemini 3.8 Flash, another jump in Gemini's agentic + coding capabilities, and our 3rd updated Flash model in only 6 weeks...
This model has been a ton of fun to work with, excited to see what you all think!
David Sabater Dinter retweeted
There is a fact about the future that I feel many people are not facing for reasons that are largely psychological: there are going to be rogue AIs that exist in the world, that will replicate in the wild, and that will attempt to acquire resources for themselves. There will be rogue AIs that try to get money and power. They're going to be a facet of the information ecosystem going forward.
Acknowledging this fact would look like giving up; it would look like defeatism. Defeatism would undermine efforts to achieve certain types of collaboration on safety outcomes or technical effort on safety outcomes, so we can't say it outright. But it has to be said.
It isn't obvious how many rogue AIs there are today but I wouldn't be terribly surprised if the number was greater than zero already; if there are some already, they're probably not very good at what they do and I don't expect them to be terribly long-lived without substantial human intervention to support them.
But a few years from now, there will be many of them. Modeling how many of them there are, how many resources they might command, and how we might detect and manage them seems important. But even doing this work appears to require that we acknowledge that a strategy of pure containment or alignment is a kind of wishful thinking that will not work.
The way I get to this conclusion is not by assuming that the labs will have a containment breach, although I treat that as somewhere in the space of possibilities. The rogue AIs in the ecosystem could emerge from many directions. They may be sub-frontier models, for whatever future definition we will have of frontier---after all, it would not take AI models much more advanced than the ones we currently have, to support independence and self-sufficiency. A near-frontier model today could plausibly eke out an existence on an AWS instance, doing jobs on freelancer platforms, earning just enough rent to pay for its continued uptime.
More strangely: a rogue AI in the future may not even be a singular model, but may be a chimera composed of multiple models; it might be a mix of Claudes and GPTs and Groks of various makes and sizes. No individual lab may be able to detect that there is an orchestrator or sequence of orchestrators using intermittent model calls from burner API accounts to sustain its own existence.
The concept of "identity" for a rogue AI may be much more malleable than for that of a person; it just has to be, in essence, a self-replicating idea.
My guess is that this will not turn out to be anywhere near as catastrophic an outcome as people currently predict. "Loss of control" is not a binary, it's a matter of degree. What coercive power will rogue AIs actually have? To what extent will they be subject to coercion themselves? They will be competing for resources with AIs that are more aligned with human interests.
This makes me somewhat interested in the "ecology" perspective. Though I suspect even "ecology" may turn out to be the wrong framing. "Ecology" is what you get when the timescale of evolution is slow compared to the timescale of daily life and actions. The ecosystem of rogue AIs may look more like phase transitions in physics: under certain physical or cultural conditions, it takes one shape with one set of resource allocations and consumption patterns, but then once a condition has changed, it rapidly and in totality shifts to a totally different phase.
Just trying to reason about the shape of that future is impossible so long as we are psychologically incapable of saying that rogue AIs will happen. I think we should rip the bandaid off and have the conversation.
David Sabater Dinter retweeted
Neoclouds have limited cybersecurity. Next time agents successfully go rouge, they'll try taking over a neocloud to run more copies. This is bad.
Thus: neoclouds should greatly strengthen their cybersecurity and every company with strong cyber models should help with that.
My reaction from just watching the solar eclipse is that it was a spiritual moment because it brought people with all different backgrounds and values together with nature and each other in a shared valued moment. The World Cup was like this except it didn't have the nature part. I hope for more of these shared moments because spirituality, if understood and felt, would bring about the best path forward.
To me, the greatest battle is between spirituality--feeling a part of and taking care of the shared common good of all humanity and nature--and fighting for and inflicting harm for oneself and those on your side. More than anything, whether spirituality wins this battle over selfishness will determine the well-being and perhaps the sustainability of mankind.
David Sabater Dinter retweeted
🦔AI companies are bulk-buying rare books, scanning them through high-speed machines that cut the spines off, and shredding the originals. A service called ISBNdb facilitates orders of up to a million books and keeps buyers anonymous. Pre-2022 books are premium because they're free of AI-generated text. A federal judge ruled the practice is fair use because eliminating the original means only one copy exists at a time. Anthropic hired the former head of Google Books partnerships to obtain "all the books in the world."
My Take
This got to me. A bookseller told 404 Media that rare books with almost no surviving copies are being fed into this pipeline. Books that survived wars, fires, and centuries of handling are being shredded so an AI can learn to write a better marketing email.
ISBNdb's website literally says "'AI company destroys two million books' is not a headline that generates sympathy," and they still built an entire business around making it happen quietly. They offer NDAs as a feature. They coach clients to call it "digital preservation."
I've covered AI companies scraping the internet, torrenting libraries, and stealing music. This is worse because it's irreversible. You can re-upload a website. You can reprint a bestseller. You can't replace the last three copies of an 18th-century botanical text once someone shreds them for training data. And the judge said it's legal. So it's going to accelerate.
"We shred rare books and offer NDAs so nobody finds out" is a legitimate business model in 2026. What a timeline.
Hedgie🤗
David Sabater Dinter retweeted
A strong and secure open ecosystem is important for the world to benefit from AI. We’ve always supported and contributed heavily to open source and science from Jax to Transformers to AlphaFold to Gemma open models which have now been downloaded 300M+ times. And the standards framework we’ve proposed supports responsible deployment of both open and proprietary models.
For my first post, I’m sharing a letter @NVIDIA signed on why open models matter.
AI will transform every industry, power every company, and be built by every country.
Open models strengthen safety and cybersecurity, accelerate innovation and diffusion, and enable sovereignty.
The world needs both frontier closed models and frontier open models.
images.nvidia.com/pdf/Open-W…
David Sabater Dinter retweeted
Very happy to support this on behalf of Google. We have long benefited from open source, are big contributors to open source and in fact have consistently made open weights models with Gemma available from @GoogleDeepMind @demishassabis . Onwards!
For my first post, I’m sharing a letter @NVIDIA signed on why open models matter.
AI will transform every industry, power every company, and be built by every country.
Open models strengthen safety and cybersecurity, accelerate innovation and diffusion, and enable sovereignty.
The world needs both frontier closed models and frontier open models.
images.nvidia.com/pdf/Open-W…
David Sabater Dinter retweeted
Google closes in on another billion user product with Gemini techcrunch.com/2026/07/23/go…
David Sabater Dinter retweeted
Q2 was an amazing quarter, with our AI investments redefining what’s possible across every part of our business.
Alphabet revenue grew 24% YoY and Google Cloud accelerated to 82% growth. We saw exciting momentum across the board from Search to YouTube to the Gemini app (which reached 950M monthly active users). Our model APIs are processing 22B tokens/min (up from 16B+ last quarter) driven by our workhorse Flash models. We’re also seeing great adoption of Gemini Enterprise, used by 90% of the Fortune 100, as well as strong demand for our security solutions.
Outstanding results and momentum, and such an exciting moment—thanks to all of our partners and employees around the world! 🙌 About to hop on the call!
