pulpbag ⏹ retweeted
The Ban Artificial Superintelligence Act directly confronts the extinction threat that humanity is facing. We are inspired that the Sanders and Casar teams take this threat seriously, and MIRI endorses the Act. You can read more of our thoughts in the link below.
pulpbag ⏹ retweeted
Amodei, Altman, Hassabis, and Musk have spoken (albeit somewhat inconsistently) about the need to slow down to avoid AI existential risk.
Zuckerberg, Huang, and almost every VC say it's bullshit.
The difference is not that the first group is conflicted but the second isn't. They both are super conflicted.
If AI existential risk was to hype up the technology, why would Zuckerberg, Huang, and VCs be dismissing it? If it were "regulatory capture," why would Hassabis and Musk, neither of whom are at the frontier (sorry), be discussing it?
The difference is that the first group has been thinking about these risks seriously (at least off-and-on) for over a decade, since well before they ran large AI companies. The second has very clearly only engaged superficially, and is now annoyed that the first group's actions could dampen the massive profits of the AI boom for risks that sound like science fiction to them.
The terrifying reality is that these concerns are not being made up to sell a product or a policy. They have been around in some form since Turing, and fleshed out in great detail before OpenAI or Anthropic were a twinkle in their CEOs' eyes. They are fundamental to a technology whose entire purpose is to surpass human capacity, unless you are able to solve the very, very difficult problem of aligning the interests/goals of a more powerful agent with something as complex as human flourishing -- which the companies are very visibly failing to do.
They need to simply not build superintelligence, using anything remotely like current techniques, based on anything remotely like the present understanding of AI.
pulpbag ⏹ retweeted
Blistering piece from Ezra Klein.
Calls for a comprehensive ban on Recursive Self Improvement starting immediately.
RSI is a grey area, so how do you define it?
Very expansively. Then get firms to apply for narrow exemptions.
YouTube link below.
nytimes.com/2026/09/20/opini…
👀 SCOOP: U.S. open to discussing AI "shared risks" with China, Bessent says
axios.com/2026/09/16/us-open…
pulpbag ⏹ retweeted
I feel like I'm taking crazy pills with how many smart people I read and respect are saying stuff like this.
The idea that the AI labs are suddenly, only now, just in September of 2026, advocating for AI safety, and that they just came around to this position bc of sudden financial precarity, is just completely, utterly, conclusively, 100% wrong.
Here's Dario Amodei telling Ross Douthat in February that he agrees with the case for slowing down; that he's in favor of "collaborating" internationally to organize a slowdown; that "I would be all for" a global slowdown. This was 7 months ago, when Anthropic's annualized recurring revenue was rising faster than any company in modern history. He's been saying stuff like this for years, when Anthropic was worth millions of dollars and when Anthropic was projected to IPO for trillions.
fwiw I think the actual reason leaders of AI frontier labs suddenly seem to agree to pace AI development is
(a) safety measures are currently so crap that they're likely to end up in court if not jail, and they all agree that no one wants that
(b) they see no major new model advancement coming up soon anyway and need an excuse
(c) shift in public opinion
the talk of existential threat is mostly there to keep you distracted and the stock market happy.
pulpbag ⏹ retweeted
Speaking as head of the Center for Study of Public Choice, the capture story for an AI pause doesn't fit. Reg capture is what you attempt when you're losing. Anthropic is about to have the biggest IPO in history. Winners don't lobby for regulation.
pulpbag ⏹ retweeted
AI is unlike any technology we've seen before. Once it becomes fully dangerous, it won't care whether you're Chinese or American. We can't afford to wait three years to act, we have to move now to regulate it. – at Washington, DC
pulpbag ⏹ retweeted
Dario Amodei, Elon Musk and Sam Altman now agree that we must slow down the development of AI and “pace the frontier.”
That’s a start, but it’s not enough.
When you are racing towards a cliff, you don’t just ease up on the gas pedal. You hit the brakes.
When the future of humanity is at stake we need a PAUSE on advanced AI development and a ban on artificial superintelligence — an AI mind smarter than any human and capable of operating independently beyond our control.
At their upcoming AI summit, Trump and Xi must negotiate a treaty to pause AI and ban superintelligence before it is too late.
pulpbag ⏹ retweeted
There are currently zero things more important than "don't die to AI" becoming a bipartisan project rather than a Democrat-polarized issue. If you have any political capital you can spend on this, do it now, I beg of you. Life or death.
pulpbag ⏹ retweeted
President Trump prides himself on being a great deal maker. Well. He now has the opportunity to make “the deal of the century.”
With the future of humanity at stake, Trump must negotiate a comprehensive treaty with President Xi of China to establish a pause on advanced AI development and a ban on super intelligence.
In order to prevent a nuclear war, Reagan and Gorbachev negotiated a nuclear arms agreement in the 1980s. In order to prevent AI from acting independently of human control, Trump and Xi must do the same.
pulpbag ⏹ retweeted
Can we all agree that “frontier labs are lying about AI safety to pump their IPOs, capture the regulators, and make more money” is a conspiracy theory at this point?
For it to be true, Sam, Dario, Demis, and Elon all have to be lying, along with a big chunk of their execs, chief scientists, and resigning employees.
It also asks you to believe the labs volunteered for much heavier scrutiny that slows them down in the middle of the biggest ARR growth run in the history of capitalism with no signs of slowing down … because they want to make more money by inventing regulatory hurdles that only they can clear(?).
And OpenAI has now said it would even be willing to delay its own IPO over safety concerns - i.e. put off (maybe risk entirely) the biggest liquidity event ever in Silicon Valley. The conspiracy requires us to believe that they’re doing that to make more money(?)
Elon agrees with Dario; i.e. the guy who ran D.O.G.E is *asking for more scrutiny and regulation*. And we're supposed to believe that's because he thinks it will help his company succeed(?)
A much simpler explanation at this point: they think the risk is real.
The tech lords act like priests who know Latin & keep the rest of us in the dark.
Get beyond the opaque jargon and its pretty straightforward.
Amodei doesn’t go nearly far enough.
We must pause recursive self improving AI.
We must have criminal and civil liability for AI that damages us.
What is your P(doom), probability of doom, number Dario?
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…
pulpbag ⏹ retweeted
It's happening: 70+ UK lawmakers have just publicly called on the Prime Minister to ban superintelligence and seek an international agreement to ban it globally.
When I said that things could move quickly, this is what I meant.
pulpbag ⏹ retweeted
With 71 colleagues I am calling on the Govt to work with us on my bill to prohibit the development of superintelligent AI and champion an international agreement
We can then lead on preventing the extinction risk posed by superintelligence while preserving strategic AI ambitions
pulpbag ⏹ retweeted
Elon Musk says Jacob Coxon’s warning about the existential threat of AI is a “setup.”
Really?
In 2014, Musk said, “With artificial intelligence we are summoning the demon.”
In 2018, Musk said, “Mark my words, AI is far more dangerous than nukes. Far. So why do we have no regulatory oversight? This is insane.”
In 2025, Musk said, earth faces a 10-20% chance of “killer robots annihilating humanity.”
Elon, what’s changed? Does it have anything to do with the fact that you have invested many billions of dollars in AI and plan to build ten million robots a year?