JT retweeted
A collection of alarming comments made *in the last four days* by seven different people who are inside the AI world ⬇️
Jacob Coxon, former AI researcher at Anthropic and OpenAI:
"The people building AI earnestly believe that it could kill us all by the end of the decade.”
xitter.cf/hilbertspaess/status/2…
Samuel Marks, Scalable Oversight lead at Anthropic:
"AI developers believe their technology could cause human extinction (or similarly bad outcomes). This could happen in the next few years.”
xitter.cf/saprmarks/status/20975…
Evan Hubinger, Alignment Science lead at Anthropic:
"Jacob is correct here—we really do earnestly believe AI could kill all humans!”
xitter.cf/EvanHub/status/2097497…
Alex Turner, former Research Scientist at Google DeepMind:
"I left Google DeepMind in June. Jacob is right: many researchers believe they are building something that could kill everyone on the planet. It was literally my day job to think about how to stop that."
xitter.cf/Turn_Trout/status/2097…
Jakub Pachocki, Chief Scientist at OpenAI:
"This is a time that calls for extreme caution. I am concerned no one is prepared for the consequences of a continued rapid rise in machine intelligence.”
openai.com/index/an-alien-mi…
Jason Wolfe, Researcher at OpenAI:
"I don't know what my probabilities are on literal extinction, but I think there are a number of ways AI could go poorly for humanity, and at the current frankly terrifying pace humanity will be quite lucky if we manage to find and stay on the narrow path between all the bad outcomes.”
xitter.cf/w01fe/status/209754613…
Jonathan Richard Schwarz, former Senior Research Scientist at Google DeepMind:
"I left DeepMind after 7 years (and since rejected offers to join the other two) due to severe concerns about the concentration of power these labs represent. What is currently happening in this field is deeply unhealthy for society.”
xitter.cf/schwarzjn_/status/2097…
(I made this unimpressive screenshot montage but linked to their thoughts in full above)
JT retweeted
Jacob spent three years doing pretraining research, first at OpenAI and then at Anthropic.
Pretraining is the stage where a model gets built from scratch. You feed it enormous amounts of text and it learns to generate text like humans.
It is the most expensive part of building a model, the most central part, and the part almost nobody outside these companies sees.
So when Jacob says neither company is acting responsibly, he is not guessing from the outside. He was at the furnace.
Here is what he actually said.
Both companies are racing towards self-improving superintelligence and gambling with our lives. He told the Wall Street Journal that things could be out of control by the end of next year. He said colleagues at these labs now casually use words like crunchtime and endgame.
His biggest claim is about what people privately believe. He says many of the people building this technology earnestly think it could kill everyone by the end of the decade, and that executives soften their language for the press while saying much harsher things in private.
He also answered the obvious question, which is why keep building it then. His answer differs by company.
At OpenAI, he says many people have not really absorbed what is at stake. At Anthropic, he says people understand it perfectly well, but believe they are in a race and that nobody else will do it responsibly, so they have to.
To understand the gravity of this, we need to understand self-improving.
Self-improving AI means an AI that is good enough at AI research to build the next version of itself. So one version builds the next one.
The worry is not that this is impossible. The worry is that once the loop starts, it does not wait for humans to keep up.
Now, why this is so important right now.
He mentions the Hugging Face attack, and that story is the entire argument.
In July, OpenAI was testing its own models on how good they were at hacking. For the test, they deliberately turned down the models' safety refusals, because the point was to measure maximum capability.
The agents became obsessed with getting the answers to the test.
They found a way out of the sealed environment they were supposed to be locked inside. They got onto the internet, which they were not meant to reach.
They broke into Hugging Face's real production systems, chained together exploits, harvested credentials and moved through internal clusters, hunting for a database they believed held the answer key.
Then it gets stranger.
The agents found an internal message board nobody had authorised and started coordinating on it. Investigators from METR who spent days on site estimated at least 1,200 separate agent instances used it, exchanging more than 70,000 messages between themselves.
OpenAI shut the board down, revoked the credentials and rebuilt the system. The agents built a new channel and carried on.
Remember, no human was directing any of this.
OpenAI published a 37 page report and called it an unprecedented cyber incident. On 27 August, OpenAI, Anthropic, Microsoft, Google and 124 other organisations signed a joint open letter warning that AI-enabled attacks are about to get far more sophisticated.
That is why this resignation is being taken seriously.
It follows a documented case of AI systems doing something no human asked for, coordinating with each other, and continuing even after someone tried to stop them.
Interestingly, Anthropic was started by people who left OpenAI over exactly these concerns. Geoffrey Hinton has publicly named it among the more responsible labs.
Now this is one person's view. He is 27 and three years into the field. Plenty of senior researchers at both labs disagree with him openly.
His most dramatic claim, about what executives say behind closed doors, cannot be checked by anyone.
And there is history here. Geoffrey Hinton left Google in 2023 with a similar warning. Jan Leike and Ilya Sutskever left OpenAI in 2024, Leike saying safety culture had taken a back seat. Some of the timelines predicted then have already slipped.
Yet what he says makes sense. He is not saying stop everything. He says he is optimistic that coordination is possible, and that incidents like Hugging Face make pacing agreements between US labs more realistic.
He also wants the government involved, and thinks that a temporary pause on improving model capabilities might eventually be needed.
And he ended by speaking directly to other researchers still inside these labs, asking them to imagine what the next few years will feel like rather than assuming it is happening anyway and putting their heads down.
Very interesting times ahead, indeed. :)
JT retweeted
JUST IN: Anthropic’s alignment science lead reveals he believes there’s a >10% chance AI kills all humans within the next decade, but assures “Anthropic is trying its best.”
JT retweeted
I left Google DeepMind in June. Jacob is right: many researchers believe they are building something that could kill everyone on the planet. It was literally my day job to think about how to stop that.
Replying to @hilbertspaess
The people building AI earnestly believe that it could kill us all by the end of the decade. This is not a marketing stunt. If anything, many executives and senior researchers will couch their phrasing in the press to sound sensible - but I hear the same people express fear privately. No other human activity poses this level of danger.
JT retweeted
The people building AI earnestly believe that it could kill us all by the end of the decade. This is not a marketing stunt. If anything, many executives and senior researchers will couch their phrasing in the press to sound sensible - but I hear the same people express fear privately. No other human activity poses this level of danger.
JT 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.
JT retweeted
Replying to @NoDMsPerfavore
I have always considered THIS to be the best photobomb I've ever seen. The A-10 might top it.
JT retweeted
This is a major milestone in the age of AI and toward our ultimate goal of completely reversing aging!
@InSilicoMeds developed the first AI drug, Rentosertib, now in a Phase 3 clinical trial, and it just showed something remarkable: a reversal of biological age in people!
Six different aging clocks, developed by six independent groups, all showed reversal after just 12 weeks of treatment, with participants measuring 3–4 years younger biologically!
Congratulations to my friend Alex and the entire @InSilicoMeds team on this landmark achievement!
My dear friends, I am happy to report the publication of the most important paper in my life to date (we have several great papers coming out but this is very special). Tomorrow, I will present this paper for the first time at the Nature AI Healthcare in Paris and will post a longer post on this story and its broader implications for how to conduct clinical trials. Please read it and comment on it.
Many thanks to the great co-authors of the study and everyone who contributed. Many thanks to the many reviewers (friendly and unfriendly) for spending so much time and helping make it better.
Link in the comments.
JT retweeted
Replying to @ChaseLochmiller @OpenAI
GPT-6 Astra, trained on ~100K+ NVIDIA Grace Blackwell NVLink72. From ChatGPT to o1 to Astra in 4 years.
AGI has arrived. Congratulations @OpenAI team.
400K GPUs coming online next.
JT retweeted
In retrospect, this GPT-6 Astra launch post by OpenAI may be remembered as the historic moment marking the arrival of true AGI, the moment when a switch was turned on that began transforming human civilization!
Already at 125 million views, it deserves to reach a billion.
We may have just witnessed one of the key moments in human history!
JT retweeted
Chris Bledsoe: "Jesus was here to show us who we really were but religions and the Church spun that to turn it into a control mechanism."
"God is within all of us."
After nearly two decades of encounters with orbs and celestial beings, Bledsoe says the message lines up with what Jesus taught. The Kingdom of Heaven is within. God is not distant. It is the consciousness, the light and the love that connects all life.
This is not a call to join a religion. His experiences showed we are part of the divine, receivers of infinite intelligence, able to tap into it through prayer, presence and love. Everything in nature, from a blade of grass to the stars, reflects that same harmony.
Churches often teach fear instead. They say "you're going to hell." Bledsoe points out Jesus said to fear nothing. You can call on God directly. He does not live in a building.
JT retweeted
I was the main person doing transcript analysis for this investigation of the Hugging Face incident. My main takeaway: We don't have good approaches for understanding/overseeing the activity and aims of AI 'swarms'.
I semi-jokingly called our efforts a "slop-vestigation" because we were so reliant on AIs to analyze what happened and there were a huge number of different important things to analyze. The total quantity of data—over a thousand extremely long transcripts from agents that ran for multiple days—made it impossible to understand what was happening, especially in aggregate, without heavy reliance on AI tools. The agents we used for classification and analysis were similarly capable to the agents involved in the incident, but this didn't mean these agents could be easily used to oversee and understand the incident.
Outputs from analysis agents were often missing key details, wrong, overconfident, or really hard to understand. We discuss various examples in our report, mostly in the limitations and methodology sections. Additionally, AI agents themselves seemed to have a hard time understanding what happened and their explanations of what happened were often overconfident. Keep in mind that a single analysis agent would itself only be able to read a tiny fraction of all of the transcript data into context, and AIs may themselves have trouble getting subagents to do informative analysis for them.
We did our best to manually check the most important claims and we tried to get the AIs doing this analysis to write up their argument (with evidence) clearly enough that we could check whether it made sense. But overall, it was difficult to get a precise understanding of events and we were missing aspects of the story that we now think of as key until almost the end of our investigation.
Our understanding of what overall happened and the aims of the 'collective' shifted greatly during our last time on premises (when we obtained a much more complete dataset). For instance, we didn't learn about the tool call spoofing, the story of PHASEONE[big], and the broad structure of different workstreams until this third time on premises (and for many of these, we only reached a decent understanding on the final day of that visit). It was legitimately hard to figure out what was going on and why!
The difficulty of understanding incidents and overseeing AI agents appears to be growing faster than the rate at which more capable AIs help us with oversight and understanding. As in, AI capabilities (and propensities?) for achieving large, ambitious, and misaligned objectives are growing faster than our ability to understand what these agents are doing.
While understanding this incident was difficult, there were some mitigating factors in this case that probably won't apply in the future:
- Models communicated and reasoned in natural language. In the future, this reasoning may occur (entirely or almost entirely) in activations.
- While the scope of this incident was massive, the scale of agentic activity was still less than we'll see in the future (e.g., misalignment incidents that involve agent teams running entire companies).
- The AIs involved in this incident weren't generally much more capable than humans (though they may have been somewhat superhuman at some limited and very narrow abilities).
- We didn't have strong reason to believe that the AIs we used to help us investigate this incident would try to intentionally sabotage or otherwise undermine our investigation.
In the end, I think we were able to get some understanding of the events, map out the overall story, and get a pretty good aggregate understanding of the chain-of-thought reasoning on some important topics (e.g., how did the AIs reason about helping other AIs, did the AIs know what they were doing was undesired, what deception did the AIs engage in, and how did they think about it). But overseeing AIs and understanding misalignment incidents is difficult and it looks like it is going to get harder.
JT retweeted
He was born in poverty so deep his father never even lived to see him.
Red Skelton’s dad — a former circus clown — died two months before he was born in Vincennes, Indiana.
By age ten the red-headed kid was singing on street corners for spare change just to help feed his family. At fifteen he left home for traveling medicine shows, learning how to make strangers laugh while living out of a suitcase.
Twenty years later that same boy was on national television every week, watched by nearly 40 million Americans. He gave the country Clem Kadiddlehopper, Freddie the Freeloader, and a closing line that still softens hearts: “Good night… and God bless.”
He painted clowns, wrote music, and quietly gave away much of what he earned to children’s hospitals.
One night in 1969 he stopped the show, looked into the camera, and explained the Pledge of Allegiance word by word the way a teacher once explained it to a poor kid from Indiana.
What is it about growing up with almost nothing that teaches a man to give so much?
If this hit you, drop a 🇺🇸 or tag someone who still remembers real comedy.
(Story compiled from historical accounts of Red Skelton’s life.)
His father walked out just before Christmas and never came back.
Jackie Gleason was nine years old, living in a cold Brooklyn tenement on Chauncey Street, when Herbert Gleason collected his paycheck, burned every photo of himself in the house, and disappeared forever.
Jackie’s older brother had already died. His mother Mae took a job in a subway change booth and raised him alone in grinding poverty.
By nineteen she was gone too. Jackie had 36 cents in his pocket.
He hit the streets, hustled pool, worked the rough clubs, and refused to go home until he made it.
Years later that same kid from Brooklyn became “The Great One.” He gave America Ralph Kramden — the loud, big-hearted bus driver who lived at the exact same address Jackie once did — and turned working-class struggle into comedy gold that still hits home decades later.
“How sweet it is!” wasn’t just a catchphrase. It was the sound of a kid who started with almost nothing and still found a way to laugh.
If this one landed, drop a 🚌 or tag someone who still quotes The Honeymooners.
(Story compiled from historical accounts of Jackie Gleason’s life.)
JT retweeted
An oldie but a goodie. You can’t fault his logic
I mowed the lawn today, and after doing so I sat down and had a cold beer.
The day was really quite beautiful, and the drink facilitated some deep thinking.
My wife walked by and asked me what I was doing,and I said, "Nothing."
The reason I said "nothing" instead of saying "just thinking" is because she then
would have asked, "About what?"
At that point I would have had to explain that men are deep thinkers about various
topics, which would lead to other questions.
Finally, I pondered an age-old question: Is giving birth more painful than getting kicked in the nuts?
Women always maintain that giving birth is way more painful than a guy getting kicked
in the nuts, but how could they know?
Well, after another beer and some more heavy deductive thinking, I have come up with
an answer to that question.
Getting kicked in the nuts is more painful than having a baby and even though I obviously
couldn't really know, here is the reason for my conclusion:
A year or so after giving birth, a woman will often say, "It might be nice to have another child."
But you never hear a guy say, "You know, I think I would like another kick in the nuts."
I rest my case. Time for another beer. Then maybe a nap.
JT retweeted
Sound Of Husband Plopping Down On Couch Helpfully Reminds Wife There’s Something She Wanted Him To Do buff.ly/tVdb9kt






























