@Sysadminsith
Account based inUnited States!
About this account
- Account based in
- United States
- Connected via
- United States App Store
X says this location may be affected by a proxy or VPN.
Account-level information from X, not a live location or the device used for a specific post.
Financial markets and economic stuff. I used to build homes in the cloud for the beep-boops to live. Build more data centers! 🇺🇸
Joined March 2018
- Tweets2.6K
- Following1.2K
- Followers526
- Likes11.3K
Muse moment = Deepseek moment = OpenClaw hysteria, etc. Its all part of the cycle, and none of the hype lasts. Proceed with caution $META
AI will probably need regulations, at some point.
To use an analogy:
We need to address that after we build the bomb, not before we have enrichment figured out.
We are so early in the existence of AI that we run the danger of putting the regulatory walls in the wrong places.
All this talk about AI killswitches has me on a Killswitch Engaged kick today.
I don’t know if there is a finer debut album, especially in the New England hardcore scene, than Alive or a Just Breathing. It’s still so damn good.
Jensen Huang is the AI daddy you should be listening to.
We don’t need new laws to deal with faulty products or hacking incidents. We already have plenty of laws that govern AI, we just have to apply them.
Well this is interesting. Nvidia CEO Jensen Huang suggest AI firms could be seeking liability protections for harms their products may cause.
“Go and read between the lines. They're actually not asking for more laws. They're asking to be relieved of the laws we do have, and I I think that that's a problem.”
When does Taiwan 🇹🇼 become so important to AI and advanced chip manufacturing (aka ‘compute capacity’ aka ‘frontier intelligence’) that President Xi and and the CCP start “national reunification” and just take Taiwan by force? Make the US try to stop them by force?
METR is the farthest thing from an impartial external auditor. METR is a political organization. Check the funding, follow the money. It is genuinely dangerous to put them in charge of any form of AI oversight. This is a huge mistake.
METR says they “don’t accept money from frontier AI companies” and have a “wide range of donors.” Let’s see:
METR spun off of ARC with ~$4.5 million. ARC received $5-6 M from Jaan Tallinn’s Survival and Flourishing Fund. Tallinn was a series A investor in Anthropic and is a major EA funder.
Dustin Moskovitz also funded ARC with at least $1.5M through his foundations. Series A Anthropic investor. Major EA funder.
Eric Schmidt has donated an undisclosed amount to METR through foundations. He is also a Series A Anthropic investor.
Unnamed “individuals from Jane Street,” amount undisclosed. Jane Street bought 3.3 million shares of Anthropic from FTX in 2024, and more later.
The Audacious Project, $17M commitment. Funded by (among others) the Gates Foundation, Mackenzie Scott (formerly Bezos). The Gates foundation entered a $200M partnership with Anthropic in May (not an investment, to be clear). Scott’s fortune is mostly Amazon stock. Amazon is Anthropic’s largest strategic investor.
Various other EA outlets such as Longview Philanthropy (Moskovitz again, via Coefficient) and Effektiv Spenden.
The British government via the UK AI Security Institute.
METR might not publicly declare itself EA or take direct checks from labs, but their funders are overwhelmingly EA and also invested in Anthropic. This is not independence or ideological diversity.
The “We Build The Wall” fraudster + The “Tax the millionaires” until he became one guy are fear mongering AI for votes and clicks.
This is nothing but uninformed idiots scaring people for personal gain and power. 100% propaganda.
Build more data centers 🇺🇸 🫡
Kevin Warsh taking the Fed on a hike today. It’ll be a long hike too. Dot-plot shows we’re firmly at the start of a hiking cycle. Not a 1-off 25 bps change to satisfy the bond markets.
This is an important read:
Ultra liberal, globalist, ultra woke ideology is funding the AI media.
You’re being brainwashed by they/thems and he/shes.
Don’t let the woke mind virus control AI or the future of frontier intelligence.
UNDISCLOSED PAID MEDIA:
The salaries of reporters, Harry Booth and Billy Perrigo, were paid by Doomsday cultist Dustin Moskovitz's foundation Coefficient Giving via the Tarbell Fellowship.
effort.news/tarbell
Time to have the mental illness conversation out loud and in public.
Anthropic CEO Dario Amodei's handpicked AI watchdog has deep ties to woke Effective Altruism movement: 'a complete joke' trib.al/IuA3uHW
Say NO to woke AI!
You wouldn’t let these people babysit your children. Yet, they want to be the oversight for frontier intelligence. It’s clear just from the images they have a mental illness or 2 and lack some key critical thinking skills.
Anthropic CEO Dario Amodei's handpicked AI watchdog has deep ties to woke Effective Altruism movement: 'a complete joke' trib.al/IuA3uHW
These people know nothing about AI, how it works, what’s its dangers or capabilities are. Scared by fear mongering and sensationalism. They’re afraid for no reason and begging for some imaginary government protection like a bunch of uneducated cucks. It’s embarrassing.
🇺🇸 🫡
EXCLUSIVE: Trump AI advisor David Sacks tells CBS News' @JoLingKent that tech leaders like Anthropic CEO and co-founder Dario Amodei have a responsibility to ensure their products are safe — and should "step aside" if they can't control what they're building.
Sith retweeted
The biggest AI companies may be using safety to lock everyone else out of the future (Save this).
@DavidSacks believes that warnings about catastrophic AI risks will build public support for a powerful federal regulator.
That regulator may never explicitly ban open source AI.
Instead, it could require every advanced model to remain continuously monitored, centrally controlled and capable of being withdrawn.
Closed models such as Claude could satisfy those requirements because they operate on company controlled servers.
Open weight models would struggle to comply because anyone can download, copy and modify their underlying weights.
Once those weights are publicly released, the developer cannot recall every copy, monitor every user or guarantee that its original safeguards remain intact.
Anthropic identifies this irreversibility as a legitimate security concern.
Applying identical rules to open and closed models could therefore produce very unequal consequences.
Anthropic and OpenAI could afford expensive testing, licensing and monitoring requirements, while startups and independent developers might be unable to comply.
The eventual result could be a government protected oligopoly dominated by a few closed model companies.
There is evidence supporting part of Sacks’ concern.
Anthropic advocates mandatory pre-release testing for every sufficiently powerful model, whether it is open or closed, with evaluations focused on cyber, biological and alignment risks.
However, Anthropic explicitly denies supporting a blanket ban on open weight models.
The company describes open models without dangerous capabilities as a public good and argues that regulation should depend on demonstrated capabilities rather than whether a model is open or closed.
Sacks’ strongest argument is therefore about regulatory consequences because safety organizations could receive stronger protections, politicians could acquire greater authority and dominant AI companies could gain an expensive compliance moat.
And open source competitors could gradually be eliminated without the government ever formally announcing a ban.
China is the evil. America must win the AI arms race at all costs!
I don’t care about Claude writing your emails or doing your homework, building your little app… This is about super-weapons and actual war with real America hating evil.
Build more data centers 🇺🇸
BREAKING: Palantir's Alex Karp just made the geopolitical case against pausing AI development, and it's hard to argue with.
"If we didn't have adversaries, I would be very in favor of pausing this technology completely, but we do."
This isn't a techno-optimist dismissing safety concerns.
This is a CEO saying the pause debate ignores the actual world we live in.
If you pause and your adversaries don't, you didn't make a principled stand.
You just surrendered the lead.
The AI safety debate just ran into geopolitics head-on.
Who has the stronger argument here?
Dario and Sam should do what they think is right. We don’t want or need US gov regulation to keep the world safe. It does the opposite.
Gov regulation makes the world a much more dangerous place by allowing China to outpace and overtake our frontier capabilities. It’s suicidal.
Dario has written that we need to “pace the frontier,” and Sam has agreed. People may be surprised by my response: go ahead.
You guys are the frontier. By any reasonable metric — market share, revenue growth, model capability — the two of you have a duopoly on frontier intelligence. You’ve also claimed the lead is widening because of recursive self-improvement.
I don’t see what you see in the lab. If the unreleased models are scary enough that you think you should slow down, I support your decision to be responsible.
But stop pretending you need anyone else’s permission. Stop pretending antitrust law has to be suspended so you can form a cartel. Stop pretending you need a regulatory approval process that supersedes product liability. Stop pretending METR is independent when it is intertwined with Anthropic’s investors and staff. Stop pretending you need those same evaluators to police competitors who aren’t even at the frontier.
Most of all, stop pretending the motivation to slow down is purely altruistic. You face massive product-liability exposure if your products enable a truly damaging cyberattack. The market already punishes models that behave in unpredictable or unauthorized ways. After the Hugging Face episode, it is simply good business for OpenAI and Anthropic to trade some raw power for reliability and predictability. Call it alignment if you want. It is also just giving customers what they want.
Pacing the frontier would also create breathing room for a more intelligent conversation about regulation than Bernie Sanders’ “shut it all down.” China is very unlikely to join a global agreement, as you know, and that has to be taken into account as well.
So go ahead and pace the frontier. You are the ones setting it. The easiest way not to build superintelligence is for you to agree not to build it. Demanding your preferred regulatory framework as the price of that will look like blackmail of the public and the political system. So just do it.
If you do, you’ll buy goodwill for the next conversation. If you don’t, we’ll know this was just another bid for regulatory capture — or an election-season psyop.
Jian Yang would like to personally thanks @DarioAmodei for his continued efforts to aid the Chinese motherland.
We Must Pace the Frontier: I’ve written a new essay on why the AI industry should slow down, with a three-part plan for doing so.
Anthropic is unilaterally committing to the first of these steps. We’ll provide third-party evaluators with permanent, employee-level access to our systems, so that they can verify adherence to our safety measures, report on incidents, and assess models’ alignment during training.
You can read the full post here: darioamodei.com/post/we-must…
