Russia's five-hospital quarantine, FSB involvement, and reported hazmat use in response to the death of a single researcher at a weapons-lineage Irkutsk lab are inconsistent with a lab-acquired plague infection, which would have been treated with prophylactic antibiotics. 1/4

Thanks to everyone sharing in this moment! I’m so grateful to my trainees & collaborators… dlab.stanford.edu/group-memb… (pic: optogenetics conference chairs, Tuscany) Reading for all those asking: for technical details: dlab.stanford.edu for everyone: deisseroth.org/projections

Yesterday at the White House, leaders from across our industry came together to sign the White House Accord on Super Intelligence. The principle is simple: the companies building this technology have the primary responsibility to develop and deploy it safely, and to be accountable when they fall short. The Accord reinforces that responsibility with robust internal controls, independent external evaluation, and board level oversight. Super Intelligence offers an extraordinary opportunity to advance discovery, productivity, security, health, and prosperity. The future of Super Intelligence will be shaped not only by what it can do, but by the confidence it earns. By building with ambition, rigor, and responsibility, we can help ensure this extraordinary technology expands opportunity and improves lives for generations to come.

An Incomplete List of Morally Binding Accords in my Family: A Morally Binding Accord for No Screens at the Table A Morally Binding Accord to Put Dirty Dishes in the Dishwasher (is it so hard?!?!) A Morally Binding Accord to Not Put an Empty Milk Carton Back in the Fridge

Worth paying attention to TRUST

I see it as a point on the LLM pareto optimal curve in a regime that had a large revealed latent demand (no thinking, single token, low latency acceptable intelligence) that was under-invested into because of a race to higher intelligence.

One last thing from me about the HF<>OpenAI "rogue agent" incident. From what we now know it seems @huggingface was the first organization to simultaneously satisfy the following factors: 1/ awareness of the attack 2/ awareness that the attack was Agent-based 3/ ability to remediate the attack 4/ willingness to publicly disclose it A few other platforms or systems missed one or more of those points in the earlier months. As usual, both awareness and transparency make everyone safer in the long run 🙏

If companies and governments can negotiate the conditions under which AI is safe enough to advance, they can also negotiate how progress will improve everyday Americans’ lives. We must obtain economic prosperity for the many, and American AI leadership.

Last month I wrote about how we can build a positive and safe future for everyone: meta.com/thefutureisforevery… Every lab has the responsibility and incentive to move at the pace required to train its models safely, and the ability to take its own actions to ensure that happens. The reality is: - People won't want to use agents that are misaligned with them and that don't do what they ask, so labs have a strong natural incentive to make their models more aligned. There is a lot of debate about slowing progress on capabilities until alignment catches up. My view is that trust and alignment are quickly becoming the most important capabilities that will differentiate agents and models. Any lab that doesn't focus on alignment will fall behind. - Labs face significant liability if their models cause harm, so they have a strong incentive to prevent this as well. Meta delayed shipping Muse for several months to focus on safety and security. We didn't call for everyone else to do this before we would. We just did it as part of our day-to-day work because it was clearly the right thing for people and for us. I'm proud of the security foundations we've built. - Engaging independent evaluators and advisors is industry best practice. MSL already does this today in several areas because it helps produce better work. Other labs can just do this too. In general, it would be helpful for there to be a larger and more diverse ecosystem of evaluators. - Committing the significant majority of compute towards serving people rather than racing towards recursive self-improvement is one of the best ways to ensure we develop this technology safely. Meta has made this commitment and other labs can do this as well. I believe the key to building a positive future for everyone is maintaining the right balance of power. This is within our power to do.

Last month I wrote about how we can build a positive and safe future for everyone: meta.com/thefutureisforevery… Every lab has the responsibility and incentive to move at the pace required to train its models safely, and the ability to take its own actions to ensure that happens. The reality is: - People won't want to use agents that are misaligned with them and that don't do what they ask, so labs have a strong natural incentive to make their models more aligned. There is a lot of debate about slowing progress on capabilities until alignment catches up. My view is that trust and alignment are quickly becoming the most important capabilities that will differentiate agents and models. Any lab that doesn't focus on alignment will fall behind. - Labs face significant liability if their models cause harm, so they have a strong incentive to prevent this as well. Meta delayed shipping Muse for several months to focus on safety and security. We didn't call for everyone else to do this before we would. We just did it as part of our day-to-day work because it was clearly the right thing for people and for us. I'm proud of the security foundations we've built. - Engaging independent evaluators and advisors is industry best practice. MSL already does this today in several areas because it helps produce better work. Other labs can just do this too. In general, it would be helpful for there to be a larger and more diverse ecosystem of evaluators. - Committing the significant majority of compute towards serving people rather than racing towards recursive self-improvement is one of the best ways to ensure we develop this technology safely. Meta has made this commitment and other labs can do this as well. I believe the key to building a positive future for everyone is maintaining the right balance of power. This is within our power to do.

I find this the best solution to AI fear mongering with a modern tax code, not one designed for the last century. We are distributing taxes in favor of the rich today.