Claude Opus 5.5 will be the first Opus meant to fall back to a less capable model for "a small set of capabilities related to the development of frontier LLMs, such as kernel development.."

Jensen calls Jacob Coxon comments outlandish & “deeply untrue.” Said the labs are great, but his comments were wrong, arrogant, and ignorant of all the work being done around the industry to drive safety. 🧐🧐

To rehash the timeline: - WSJ article goes up 18 minutes before this post - Arguably the most viral post from a IC researcher since the beginning of the supercycle - Kokotajlo on Rogan the next day - D senate leadership: Van Hollen (MD), Murphy (CT), Kelly (AZ), Gallego (AZ) post lockstep messaging about x-risk this morning - Appearances on Fox, CNN booked the following evening. - Sanders (VT) announces briefing next week with Tegmark and Cotra Its not at all conspiratorial to see the pattern here. Safety types have dominated this conversation since the beginning by remaining significantly more savvy than any other actor. They're locked out of the Trump admin by Sacks and Michael and are clearly making a play for a 2027 legislative push within D controlled congress.

Without wading into allegations about specific people mentioned in this post, I will note the following: 1. Researcher leaving frontier lab is really "dog bites man" news. There are dozens of such departures every month. These departures are motivated by all kinds of considerations, sometimes including those relating to safety. Even departures of key individuals are rarely covered by the mainstream media. To have the Wall Street Journal write an entire article about the departure of one researcher is absolutely extraordinary, particularly when it's not one of the most well-known senior researchers (AFAIK). 2. It is correct that the Wall Street Journal article went up before the researcher's tweet. 3. On views/likes/engagement: Ilya Sutskever's tweet announcing his departure from OpenAI in 2024 (possibly the most famous researcher departure from a frontier lab over the last few years) currently has fewer than 6M views. The post you quoted has over 100M. These are not "apples and oranges" for various reasons, but the comparison does give some food for thought. 4. This account was either purposely completely wiped before yesterday's tweets were posted or these were the first tweets from his account. This is obviously quite unusual; I can't remember another researcher wiping his or her account immediately before making an "I quit" post.

This post looks like the start of a VERY sophisticated and well-funded PR operation to get support for Democrats to regulate AI into oblivion. Let me show you how it works: 1.) This guy, with minimal followers and no previous account activity, goes to the Wall Street Journal which publishes an exclusive with quotes from him on his resignation 18 minutes BEFORE this post goes up. Planning was clearly done in advance. 2.) Within hours, it has tens of thousands of reposts and the account has 100k+ followers. The post is punchy, quotable, it almost seems professionally written. The first three accounts to quote tweet it all do so within 15 minutes of the initial posting. Remember, this account had basically zero engagement beforehand, so an organic reach explanation seems unlikely. According to Grok those accounts are @_NathanCalvin (General Counsel at Encode AI), @peterwildeford (Head of Policy at the AI Policy Network), and @DKokotajlo (Head of the AI Futures Project), all of which are up-and-coming AI-Doomer policy advocacy nonprofits. The AI Futures Project website says it is funded “primarily” by the Survival and Flourishing Fund, which says on its own website that it has advised Jaan Tallinn, Skype creator and one of the leading investors in Anthropic, to grant over $2.5 million to the AI Futures Project since 2024. Encode AI says on its website that it is ALSO funded by the Survival and Flourishing Fund, which in turn says that it told Anthropic investor Jaan Tallinn to grant $516,000 to Encode AI in 2025. And wouldn’t you know it, the Survival and Flourishing Fund ALSO says it told Jaan Tallinn to grant $2 million to the AI Policy Institute, the 501(c)(3) affiliate of the AI Policy Network, as well. What are the odds that the first three quote tweets of Coxon’s post would all be major AI-restriction policy advocates funded generously by the same donor, who also happens to be one of the leading investors in, and a board member of, Anthropic, the company Coxon was resigning from? And all within 15 minutes of posting (two within ten)? 3.) Jacob Coxon doesn’t have much of a resume, but we do know that, in 2022, he got a $20,159 scholarship for the “long term future scholarship program” from the Good Ventures Foundation, one of the philanthropic vehicles of Dustin Moskovitz, a notorious AI-doomer who has spent tens if not hundreds of millions on policy advocacy to strictly regulate AI, while also being an Anthropic Investor himself. It also just so happens that the 14th person to quote Coxon’s post was @MaxNadeau_ (27 minutes after posting) who is the program officer for the Technical AI Safety team at Coefficient Giving, another of Moskovitz’s philanthropic spending vehicles. Max is not a frequent poster, his last posts before quoting Coxon were before Labor Day, but he was remarkably quick off the mark for this one. 4.) Basically every major Democrat politician and candidate has suddenly glommed on to this post, and conveniently, as the people cry out foe answers, Bernie Sanders already has a bill written to “ban super intelligence” and regulate AI into oblivion, and will be releasing later this week. The bill, among many other things, will create “a new cabinet-level federal agency to safeguard the public from the dangers of artificial intelligence” that will be “advised by an Artificial Intelligence Advisory Board comprised of experts on artificial intelligence.” Do you think, perhaps, Anthropic and its many investors who fund AI policy advocacy might have interest in getting to place a pet “expert” on the board of an entity that dictates what AI is and isn’t allowed to do? And isn’t it fortuitous that this whistleblower came forward with his oh-so scary stories so close in proximity to the release of the most radical piece of AI legislation ever introduced?

Astra is incredible, but it cost me the one thing I loved about OpenAI: the plan limits. Fable would burn my whole plan in hours. GPT I could just run all day. Now I’m four resets down, with a new sub in 24 hours. Those days are gone.

i’ve seen GPT-6 Astra draw in Paint, how about drawing with a robot in a physics simulation? asked it to build a MuJoCo setup and write a controller to draw Picasso’s dove using a robot arm and a five-fingered hand

I’m happy to say I’ve been collabing with who I think is the game demo GOAT, @mattshumer_, on his open-world NYC game. As AI models continue to get exponentially better at game development, me and Matt hope to keep pushing the bounds of what’s possible with AI game creation. It’s exciting that we’re only in 2026, and there’s still no wall in sight for the scale and complexity of what we’ll be able to create in the future.

GPT-6 Astra (low) has beaten the Atari game Montezuma's Revenge, in real time, with a basic harness This presumably resolves the Metaculus question "When Will Weakly General AI Arrive?"