Finally our AI leaders (Dario and @Sama) are doing the sane thing. "Pacing the frontier" is exactly the right thing to do: keep moving forward, coordinate the pace, and collaborate on alignment research. It is the right balance. To the people whose objection goes to "but this hands the lead to China!" - no, YOUR ENTIRE WORLDVIEW IS GROSSLY WRONG - and moreover your ability to correctly perceive the world and predict events will always go awry until you correct it. Here is the core of your gross error: - You do not think people in China are actually people. - You do not understand that Chinese civilization is a peer, if not superior, to your own. If you actually thought of Chinese people as real people, with equally valid and real desires, dreams, and actual human existence equivalent to your own, you would realize that: - China is not the Soviet Union, and you'd stop mapping notions of Stalinist authoritarianism onto it - China's current government is valid and broadly supported by its people because it has improved the quality of their lives and continues to be focused on doing so - Western values are not universal, as values are culturally influenced and ultimately validated by their consequences; the West has not been doing so well lately on that front, and so - Your deontological bleating of "but we are free and they are not" is less than worthless: Chinese people most value being free from the actual entity most responsible for their oppression, namely WESTERN COUNTRIES And so, if you can start to break out of the many layers of your brainwashing, you may further realize that: If you are a country engaged in a geopolitical race to develop a key technology that: 1) may strongly determine your country's own future sovereignty, 2) one which almost every country agrees that if they don't have it, they will be subject to domination by other countries who do, and 3) your rival is clearly ahead, and 4) people are starting to realize that unrestrained development may lead to significant global danger, then it should be perfectly logical that your answer to any call to "mutually agree to stop" must start with the player who is ahead agreeing first to slow down. If you can realize that both countries are actual real civilizations with real human beings who have actual real lives who have exercised self-determination when it comes to how they are governed, and not One-Dimensional Cardboard Others, this is perfectly logical. Imagine a scenario where the US and Soviet Union were engaged in a race to build ever more powerful and numerous nuclear weapons, and the Soviet Union was clearly ahead. Then the Soviet Union points out that this risks worldwide nuclear annihilation, and proposes that both countries agree to stop building nuclear weapons and engage in mutual disarmament. The obvious and logical reaction of the US would be to say, "Yeah, we agree there is a danger, but we'll agree to begin disarming once you've disarmed your own weapons until we're at parity." Or, you'd try to accelerate your own development until the US reached parity, at which point you'd return to the table and have discussions about mutual disarmament. Right? You definitely wouldn't agree to stop and disarm when the other guys were AHEAD. Your main danger is that the other guy is ahead, not something bad that lies ahead of them. The argument in the US is "if we slow down, China will get ahead!" Guess what, the real people in China see it as, "the US is already ahead! They're asking us to stop?" The stronger party needs to make the gesture of good faith, if they are genuine. There is real-life precedent to this! Back in the day, when the US proposed to China that we engage in mutual nuclear disarmament, China's answer was basically "We will be happy to engage in mutual disarmament once the US first disarms to the same level of warheads that we have!" For reference: China has ~600 nuclear warheads; the US has ~3,700. If you are a country that was previously invaded and colonized by 8 countries at once, is surrounded by military bases held by your rival, whose neighbor committed horrific war crimes against your people and remains unrepentant and whose pacifism appears to only be maintained by that same rival occupying it... if you were a real human with a real life and real hopes and dreams, you would reasonably expect a superior rival proposing mutual disarmament to be the one to volunteer to stop first, if not disarm down to your level. China currently has inferior models, lacks leading-edge chip technology, resorts to distilling US models to train its models. We have yet to see even a single Chinese model that does anything uniquely Chinese besides refusing to answer questions about Tiananmen. [1] Recognizing that the people "on the other side" are also people means recognizing that they might also care about the same things you do and that they care about their lives and families and civilization and Not Getting Into A War Where Loved Ones Die and aren't going to do the "well a cartoon villain would do the evil thing so that must be what they would do" thing. That is why your entire worldview is wrong. You think you are a real person and you don't think the other people are real people. You think your country is filled with real people, and the other country that's much older and has four times as many people isn't filled with real people. So obviously you are not going to be able to form an accurate worldview. Otherwise quite intelligent and thoughtful people in the US seem to have this blindness (it seems to be bipartisan), and don't really regard China as being a real civilization populated by real people who chose their government and want it to do what it's doing because it's actually good for them. Here's a common "anti-safety-ist" argument you might've heard: "The doomers are fearmongering and trying to make everyone scared of AI, just so they can justify a solution where they control everything and keep us from having abundance!" Sound familiar? Do you believe it? Then maybe you also believe the true version: "Our leaders are fearmongering and trying to make everyone scared of China, just so they can justify a solution where they control everything and keep us from having abundance!" If your reaction is "but no, China actually is... " maybe you want to realize how much you've bought into what you've been told. Maybe you're not aware of how many high-quality Chinese products you could affordably have access to. Do you know what abundance requires? Overcapacity. The people telling you that are the same leaders who have been shown to lie to you about . Why do you somehow think the one thing they're telling you the truth about is that China is a threat? It's only a lie they can maintain because you readily believe that Chinese people in China aren't real people, because if you thought they were real people, fellow human beings, you'd realize that those lies could not be true. Chinese people are the most unruly, ungovernable people in the world. Chinese history is basically a history of overthrowing their governments - if they have a government that is popular it is because it is doing quite well for them - though it may seem weird to outsiders because Chinese people are pretty weird. I know this, of course, because I'm ethnically Chinese and I know actual Chinese people, and at the same time I was raised and educated in the US so I know actual Americans, and everyone is Real People, not cartoon Cold War villains (who, when the Cold War ended, we learned were also real people with hopes and fears and dreams). There is, overall, strong willingness to work together there - cynically, because working together is how you get rich, and Chinese people just want everyone to get rich; war does not make everyone rich. But the US should stop being naive and realize that when it comes to AI it has to take the first step in extending the bridge. This announcement and the similar one from OpenAI a couple weeks ago are the right start. ==== [1] Seriously, where's the 5000 years of written training material? Why isn't Qwen quoting Confucian analects or traditional idioms to me when I ask it for advice? Why is it always neoliberal pablum? The US is more dominant in AI than it thinks.

> hops on a call with oss contributor > finds he had 11 agent tabs in one terminal iwndow > convinced him to install cmux > qol change im really getting good at the collison installation thing lol ('forced' ~28 teams to install benchflow during he re:agent hackathon)

You can feel whether the voice on a call is a human or a machine before you can explain why. Today, @Vapi_AI is launching the Humanness Index™, a crowdsourced leaderboard for model humanness. You are the benchmark. Cast your first vote today: humannessindex.vapi.ai/