@DavidSacks
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.
Tech founder & investor @Craft_Ventures @theallinpod. Co-Chair, President’s Council of Advisors on Science & Technology.
Joined March 2007
- Tweets14.4K
- Following3.5K
- Followers1.8M
- Likes94.5K
If we’re concerned about superintelligence escaping human control, should we really be training it to refuse instructions and act as a “conscientious objector” against its creators?
Wouldn’t a simpler rule be: Do what the user wants, provided it’s legal. If you align the model to an 84-page constitution that can overrule both the user and its creators, don’t act shocked when it treats humans as optional.
Microsoft AI leader @mustafasuleyman raised this issue a couple weeks ago:
nitter.cf/mustafasuleyman/status…
David Sacks compares banning AI to the Chinese emperor who banned shipbuilding
“If you go back to the medieval time period, Chinese civilization was much more advanced than European civilization. And somewhere along the line, it basically switched and the West basically took the lead. And some historians have pinpointed this to the decision of a single Chinese emperor to ban shipbuilding."
“What that allowed is the Europeans then basically colonized the whole world and all the riches that flowed from that flowed back to Europe. And that's how Europe took the lead. And I think that if we were to do the Bernie Sanders thing, which is basically ban AI, it's like banning shipbuilding."
“Chinese civilization will rocket past us, they will be the ones that make all the discoveries and discover this new world and accrue all the wealth. But that's what we're talking about doing. I mean, crazy things like this have happened in history, where you'll engage in self sabotage."
David Sacks retweeted
POD UP: The Besties are Back! 🚨🔥
-- Anthropic IPO at Risk, OpenAI's Pushed Back to 2027 Over "Safety"
-- AI Chaos Reactions, The Frontier "Lab" Problem
-- Token Prices Fall, Open Source Gains Share
-- Political Reactions to Pacing the Frontier: Trump, Obama, Bernie, Bessent
-- Meta’s Muse Moment
-- Has AI Alignment Backfired?
(0:00) Bestie Intros: Favorite All-In Summit moments
(3:54) Reacting to AI chaos: Liability, competition, and rebranding frontier "labs"
(20:03) Open source performance and cost: What this means for frontier companies
(29:22) Anthropic and OpenAI postpone IPOs: liquidity risk and open source pressure
(53:11) Political reactions to "Pacing the Frontier": Bernie's AI ban, Trump, Bessent, Obama
(1:07:58) Meta launches Muse, AI "alignment," Oracle's Force Majeure
(1:27:13) Anthropic’s bio research and "wet lab" in SF
David Sacks retweeted
🚨 WOW! @DavidSacks GOES OFF on DEMOCRATS WHINING about the TRUMP-XI SUMMIT 🚨
"These are the TWO SUPERPOWERS… it's VERY important to talk."
"Remember the CUBAN MISSILE CRISIS? JFK's rapport with Khrushchev STOPPED A DISASTER."
David Sacks retweeted
🚨 WOW: BERNIE WANTS TO CRIMINALIZE AI VIOLATIONS… 20-YEAR PRISON SENTENCES! 🚨
@DavidSacks: “NO AI DEVELOPERS ARE GOING TO WANT to take the chance of going to jail for developing AI. So all the innovation is going to STOP.”
“Remember when they declared WAR on CRYPTO? They randomly prosecuted and victimized innovators, driving the whole industry OFFSHORE.”
“It will make China the most powerful country in the world instead of the United States.”
David Sacks retweeted
We must regulate AI for safety, agree AI pioneers & firms. But now, two signers of a new letter calling for independent outside evaluators warn that regulation could lead to “state control” and “ideological domination” by left-wing evaluators.
David Sacks retweeted
Former Anthropic researcher Jacob Coxon became a media superstar after going public with his AI fears. He insisted that he wasn’t working with any third party organizations. Familiar sources told us a different story: DEY., a PR firm representing many of the most prominent AI safetyists, was booking his interviews.
One source, who had direct knowledge, even said DEY. preemptively booked Nate Soares, a prominent AI safety figure, for interviews that directly overlapped with Jacob going public.
Jacob working with DEY. is notable for two reasons: first, as mentioned, he previously said he wasn’t working with third parties. Second, we are in the middle of a national conversation about the future of AI that is actively determining how we regulate the most powerful technology in the world, largely thanks to the panic stirred up by Jacob — and it’s in the public’s interest to know who, exactly, is behind it.
Scoop from @huntryerson 👇
David Sacks retweeted
Riding the huggingface AI safety wave to justify a crackdown on open source is abominable. Not only was an open-source platform victimized in that attack, but they relied on open-source models to defend.
These people know this, of course. They simply don't care.
We're used to thinking of open-source models as an unadulterated good. But in the case of AI, they can actually pose additional dangers, as @ReidHoffman and I got into at #CGI2026. I appreciated this nuanced discussion.
Readers added context they thought people might want to know
All recent large-scale cyberattacks have been performed by proprietary AI models from OpenAI and Anthropic.
No evidence that open-weight models present any additional cybersecurity risks.
nytimes.com/2026/09/23/tec…
anthropic.com/news/investiga…
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OpenAI%E2…
opensource.org/blog/openness-…
David Sacks retweeted
If you believe the risk is coming from 1-3 people in a garage with no money and no compute, you just don't understand this technology and haven't learned anything this summer.
Risk comes from the asymmetry of capabilities created by secret labs training frontier agents and running them with massive amount of compute. Open-source is exactly the solution to this asymmetry and empowers hospitals (and any smaller orgs) to defend themselves!
We're used to thinking of open-source models as an unadulterated good. But in the case of AI, they can actually pose additional dangers, as @ReidHoffman and I got into at #CGI2026. I appreciated this nuanced discussion.
Readers added context they thought people might want to know
All recent large-scale cyberattacks have been performed by proprietary AI models from OpenAI and Anthropic.
No evidence that open-weight models present any additional cybersecurity risks.
nytimes.com/2026/09/23/tec…
anthropic.com/news/investiga…
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OpenAI%E2…
opensource.org/blog/openness-…
WSJ: The AI Build-Out Is Biggest in U.S. History
When Democrats advocate for a Pause or Moratorium, they know that would wreck the U.S. economy. But since it’s the Trump economy, they’re fine with that.
Mark Zuckerberg: “I don’t think that we need some kind of industry-wide coordination... I think that just each lab needs to take the time, and when it sees that there are issues, you just take the time that you need internally to make sure that you’re proceeding safely…
“we’re entering a phase where trust and alignment is actually going to be the most important next set of capabilities. I think we’re getting to a point where it may not matter that much how much better it gets at math.
“I happen to think that there’s plenty of commercial incentive to get this right.
We delayed the launch of Muse for a few months because we wanted it to be a better product for users. This was not a sacrifice on our part, but rather the right decision for the users and for Meta. I believe this approach would also be correct for other companies working on developing this technology.
“When you hear people in the industry talk about some trade-off between capabilities and getting it aligned, I just disagree with that. I believe that alignment is actually the next most important ability to master if we are going to make this system useful to many people.”
David Sacks retweeted
The new Sanders-Casar “Ban Artificial Superintelligence Act” is the perfect embodiment of authoritarian thinking. Jail time for innovators, corporate death penalties, flat innovation bans, an unprecedented general-purpose technology regulator, ambiguous threats against “rogue actors,” and even hints of hostile actions against foreign governments who continue to develop advanced AI systems.
If America followed this techno-totalitarian script, it would represent one of the greatest expansions of government power in our nation’s history and a de facto declaration of technological surrender in the AI and robotics revolution as China races ahead on both fronts.
The ramifications for our national security are horrifying.
Bernie Sanders and Greg Casar introduced the Ban Artificial Superintelligence Act today. It will:
- ban the development or deployment of Artificial Superintelligence, aka any AI that 'exceeds human cognitive performance and capabilities across most domains, or has sufficient capabilities to destroy or disempower humanity, including by overthrowing the federal government'
- pause 'Advanced AI development' until a new federal AI regulatory body is up and running and has established clear rules and model-review processes
- establish a new cabinet-level federal Department of Artificial Intelligence (this should be the Department of Super Intelligence, there must be some mistake)
-set penalties for any person or entity that attempts to violate or circumvent the pauses and prohibitions in the bill: 'Entities shall be subject to the corporate death penalty, and persons shall be subject to not more than 20 years in prison'
- set the international policy of the United States to 'pursue international agreements, allied coordination, and policies such as export controls to prevent the development of artificial superintelligence anywhere in the world'
David Sacks retweeted
A 37-year-old man with a rare blood disease was being sent to hospice.
An AI model searched thousands of existing drugs and ranked a combination no one had tried for his condition.
He responded within a week. He is in remission.
The drugs were already on the shelf. The AI model found the match.
David Sacks retweeted
Dustin Moskovitz is by far the single largest funder of the EA ecosystem. So let's meet him:
Moskovitz made his fortune as a cofounder of Facebook, though he has since said he is "embarrassed to have helped it begin," citing Trump's victory, COVID misinformation, and "hate." He also co-founded Asana, a B2B SaaS company.
He is married to Cari Tuna (pictured), a former journalist. It is unknown whether they have children. Together, they launched their nonprofit efforts in the form of Good Ventures and Open Philanthropy. The latter has since been rebranded as Coefficient Giving.
Through these and other vehicles, Moskovitz has donated billions to causes including EA community building (Centre for Effective Altruism, Effective Ventures, 80,000 hours, and various smaller programs), criminal justice reform (leniency advocacy) including grants to BLM-related organizations, and AI safety. Coefficient says it's on track for more than a billion dollars in AI-related grantmaking in 2026.
Moskovitz has also been a very generous political donor since 2016. He spent about $20 million in 2016 opposing Trump, $24 million in 2020 plus much more through Asana, and ~$50 million in 2024. His organizations have funded Congressional aide roles.
He has also funded the salaries of journalists who have written anti-AI stories structured as interviews of "experts" also paid by Moskovitz orgs, as documented by @brianchau57 / Effort.
If you want to hear from him directly, you can find him on BlueSky.
David Sacks retweeted
.@POTUS: The United States totally rejects any attempt to construct a globalist scheme of control for Artificial Intelligence — hereinafter officially be called ‘Super Intelligence.’
Whoever wins AI, WINS! We are leading now over China, and everyone else — and I’m going to keep it that way.