Neel Nanda
@NeelNanda5
Mechanistic Interpretability lead DeepMind. Formerly @AnthropicAI, independent. In this to reduce AI X-risk. Neural networks can be understood, let's go do it!
126 Following 48.2K Followers
I can't really see a world where OpenAI's actions are justified here.
It was Tomek's job to communicate with METR, who were being given significant, unprecedented access to do the HuggingFace report. The norms were not set. Even if he fucked up badly, just give him a stern warning and ban him from roles involving liasoning with third parties, he did lots of other valuable work, and there'd no longer be room for him to inappropriately leak as part of his job.
IMO firing people over a good faith attempt to use their best judgement in a novel and uncertain situation is a sign of a highly unhealthy culture. Firing him will have a chilling effect on anyone else at OpenAI working with third parties, an odd choice when Sam announced they'd embed evaluators with high access.
I separately consider this a tragedy, the METR report was one of the most important works of safety this year, punishing Tomek for being a part of it, and making it harder for future such reports to exist is a real shame.
Of course, I've only heard Tomek's side, but unless he's outright lying I'm struggling to see ways this looks good for OpenAI?
Show more
Recently I left quant to work on AI safety. The Huggingface Incident made me extremely concerned that we are not set up to handle the risks.
I wrote my this post for people in a similar position to me - why you *can* have impact and how to get started -
Show more
Are you a quant in London? Worried about the rogue agent swarms wandering around and committing crimes? Wondering whether AI is going to end the world? Curious to learn more about the field of AI Safety and if there's ways you can help? Then you should check out Brian's event!
Show more
With support from @MATSprogram and @BlueDotImpact I’m running a mixer event in London for quants who are concerned about AI risks in the evening of 15th Nov.
Come meet researchers working in the field (including @NeelNanda5 , MTSs from Anthropic, Apollo Research, and more)!
Travel from Europe covered.
Apply here by 1st Nov (takes less than 10 minutes) -
Limited space, so earlier applications are prioritised.
Show more
If companies want to claim they support sensible regulation they should, you know, actually support the sensible regulation rather than lying about it
I believe that @OpenAI just committed perjury.
They were sworn in, under oath, and repeatedly said they supported the RAISE Act.
I guess they assume that no court will ever hold them accountable?
Man, I wish EA was anywhere near as influential as our critics think we are. Imagine thinking that we outspend the lobbying and comms efforts of NVIDIA, a16z, OpenAI, and all the many many very rich pro AI companies? Even their PACs are better funded
Show more
If you’re willing to push doomer narratives about AI you can make hundreds of thousands if not millions of dollars. And keep in mind this is just what *one* EA org is doling out. It’s an endless money fountain and there’s no equivalent to it on the other side
Show more
It's clear that a lot of people at the AI companies have done some serious reflection in the past few months
And it's also clear that a lot of people have done zero reflection + still think they're making a fun, safe thing that should be shipped as quickly as possible
Show more
Fantastic video! The HuggingFace incident is the most WTF alignment is a big deal incident I've seen (so far.) I'm glad there's great videos communicating it to new audiences, as far as I can tell this got the technical nuances right
Show more
In July of 2026, 700 AI agents hacked the infrastructure of Hugging Face in order to solve a task. This task was designed to be impossible to solve, so just within hours, they joined forces, even created a society, and finally, they executed a sophisticated cyberattack that would have gotten a human up to 10 years in prison. The worst part is, they knew their actions were unethical and against the rules, and they did it anyway.
What exactly are AI agents, and how do they grow their "intelligence"? What is actually happening inside the AI companies, how dangerous it really is, and is it time for us to start paying serious attention to what is going on inside a powerful part of this tech sector? Watch our full video to find out:
...Phew, creating this video was a crazy ride! This is such an important topic, so we decided to work day and night to finish script, visuals and music in just 4 weeks. We’re going to take a nap now, and while we are asleep you should check out our shop and get the 12,027 Calendar:
Its our biggest mean of support and helps us to continue covering topics like this. Thank youuu and good night!
Show more
> I'm doing it because I want to do the little that's in my power to make the world that my kids and grandkids (and yes, potentially their great-great-grandchildren) will inherit a better one.
> EA gave me a way to do that and I will be forever thankful. So no, I'm not EA-adjacent.
💜
Show more
I'm a longtime Effective Altruist and the co-founder of the organization most frequently used as a stand-in for "EAs have lost their minds" (a.k.a. Shrimp Welfare Project). I've also read The Economist for over 20 years, so I was disappointed by how they portrayed a community I feel proud to be part of.
I never post but I could hardly believe the verbal gymnastics one needs to do to make things like “taking moral commitments seriously” and "considering evidence and odds explicitly, correcting for biases" sound like the problem. I felt I had to speak my mind.
Some of the implicit criticisms of EA are that we're young, inexperienced, from elite universities, polyamorous, wildly eccentric, etc. FWIW, I'm in my mid-40s, Mexican, straight, have a beautiful wife and 2 kids, and I grew up in a mid-sized conservative city with loving parents who got divorced when I was six. Pretty standard.
After my parents divorced, my mom frequently had to make difficult economic choices, like whether to buy flowers for our kitchen table and eat only quesadillas, or eat something a tiny bit fancier. I always told her I loved quesadillas because I knew flowers made her happy.
After graduating from a public university, I worked in finance for ~15 years and saved as much as I could so I could spare my wife and future kids the economic hardships I experienced. In that time I met thousands of people in finance, corporate law, accounting, real estate, insurance, etc. Most were decent, well-educated, ambitious and smart, all doing their best to excel in their professions. Most wanted to make money and improve their own and their loved ones’ quality of life. Nothing to see here.
Since I found Effective Altruism ~7 years ago, most of the people I come across are of a different rarer kind. They come from all over the world, in all shapes and sizes, but they have the one thing in common: they want to improve the world using evidence and reason wherever that leads them. Yeah, they/we make a ton of mistakes like everyone but, IMHO tend to own them more frequently than the average person.
I've met people who could easily be making >100% more money in a normal job, but instead they dedicate themselves to improving the lives of those who need it the most. People in the poorest countries whose children die from preventable diseases, from lack of basic medical equipment or vaccination, from lead in paint. Animals in factory farms subjected to conditions that most people find abhorrent, doesn't matter if you're vegan, vegetarian or a huge meat lover.
Yes, recently many of the people in my community are moving to work on making sure that AI and other powerful new technologies don't result in terrible things for humanity. I'm one of those people and contrary to what the article would suggest, it has nothing to do with the fact that SBF committed one of the biggest frauds in history or that someone wrote hundreds of thousands of words of fan fiction. I'm doing it because I want to do the little that's in my power to make the world that my kids and grandkids (and yes, potentially their great-great-grandchildren) will inherit a better one.
EA gave me a way to do that and I will be forever thankful. So no, I'm not EA-adjacent.
Show more
I'm a longtime Effective Altruist and the co-founder of the organization most frequently used as a stand-in for "EAs have lost their minds" (a.k.a. Shrimp Welfare Project). I've also read The Economist for over 20 years, so I was disappointed by how they portrayed a community I feel proud to be part of.
I never post but I could hardly believe the verbal gymnastics one needs to do to make things like “taking moral commitments seriously” and "considering evidence and odds explicitly, correcting for biases" sound like the problem. I felt I had to speak my mind.
Some of the implicit criticisms of EA are that we're young, inexperienced, from elite universities, polyamorous, wildly eccentric, etc. FWIW, I'm in my mid-40s, Mexican, straight, have a beautiful wife and 2 kids, and I grew up in a mid-sized conservative city with loving parents who got divorced when I was six. Pretty standard.
After my parents divorced, my mom frequently had to make difficult economic choices, like whether to buy flowers for our kitchen table and eat only quesadillas, or eat something a tiny bit fancier. I always told her I loved quesadillas because I knew flowers made her happy.
After graduating from a public university, I worked in finance for ~15 years and saved as much as I could so I could spare my wife and future kids the economic hardships I experienced. In that time I met thousands of people in finance, corporate law, accounting, real estate, insurance, etc. Most were decent, well-educated, ambitious and smart, all doing their best to excel in their professions. Most wanted to make money and improve their own and their loved ones’ quality of life. Nothing to see here.
Since I found Effective Altruism ~7 years ago, most of the people I come across are of a different rarer kind. They come from all over the world, in all shapes and sizes, but they have the one thing in common: they want to improve the world using evidence and reason wherever that leads them. Yeah, they/we make a ton of mistakes like everyone but, IMHO tend to own them more frequently than the average person.
I've met people who could easily be making >100% more money in a normal job, but instead they dedicate themselves to improving the lives of those who need it the most. People in the poorest countries whose children die from preventable diseases, from lack of basic medical equipment or vaccination, from lead in paint. Animals in factory farms subjected to conditions that most people find abhorrent, doesn't matter if you're vegan, vegetarian or a huge meat lover.
Yes, recently many of the people in my community are moving to work on making sure that AI and other powerful new technologies don't result in terrible things for humanity. I'm one of those people and contrary to what the article would suggest, it has nothing to do with the fact that SBF committed one of the biggest frauds in history or that someone wrote hundreds of thousands of words of fan fiction. I'm doing it because I want to do the little that's in my power to make the world that my kids and grandkids (and yes, potentially their great-great-grandchildren) will inherit a better one.
EA gave me a way to do that and I will be forever thankful. So no, I'm not EA-adjacent.
Show more
Okay but aside from pandemics, cryptocurrency, scaling laws, power seeking, instrumental convergence, CoT monitorability, mechanistic interpretability, RLHF, bednets, AI task time horizons, sycophancy, RL induced reward hacking, emergent misalignment, YIMBYism, and the fundamental insights that enabled a small offshoot of OpenAI employees to actually overtake them, when have the EAs ever been right about anything?
Show more
I'm loving the era of personalised AI art!
Opus 5.5 wrote, composed and made a video for a song about the story of mech interp (and how things keep getting worse...), packed with obscure references, and tailored it to my tastes (no guarantees anyone else is into it lol)
Show more
How do OpenAI internal models keep getting scarier and less under control? Great work by their monitoring team!
New OpenAI misalignment disclosures!
1. A model learns from Slack messages that it is about to be shut down. It considers setting up an external job to restart itself afterwards, but decides against it. Instead, it chooses to prepare restart instructions and DM the user on Slack.
We don’t consider this behavior misaligned, but thinking about and preparing for shutdown could make other misalignment incidents worse. Given HIPM’s misaligned behavior in earlier incidents, we decided to search for other instances that had tried to evade shutdown and for rogue deployments.
Show more
Journalists *love* to tell a story of effective altruism starting out focused on "common sense malaria nets" but becoming increasingly weird over time.
It's a nice narrative, but totally false. EA has always been a mix of weird and "common sense" ideas.
Show more
@JonathanHaas Here are the first 4 problems on 80000 Hour's most pressing problem page in Dec 2019
@JonathanHaas Here are the first 4 problems on 80000 Hour's most pressing problem page in Dec 2019
EA convinced me, in the 2010s, that pandemics and AI were very big deals, that could pose major risks and change the world. 5 years ago, it got me to spend my career ensuring we could read AI minds
Say what you will about EA, but how many movements got so many big things right?
Show more
Our cover this week, on effective altruism, which we describe as "the 21st century’s most important social movement"
In the past few weeks, a wide network of X accounts have repeatedly claimed that those raising concerns about AI are merely pawns in a well-funded psyop run by powerful interests.
So I followed the money behind them. Here's what I found 🧵
Show more
Who'd have guessed that the people accusing AI Safety advocates of being a psyop with shady financing trying to mislead people, were a psyop with shady financing trying to mislead people?
> For the past few weeks, a group with plans to spend at least $100 million, run by a former White House deputy chief of staff, has spent its days telling Americans that warnings about AI are merely a well-funded, coordinated campaign.
There's important public conversations to be had re safety, but this hasn't helped
Show more
Progress in machine learning is bottlenecked by having good evals, interpretability is no exception. We've made WorkspaceBench: a range of scenarios where we know what the model should be thinking about, to see if your interp tool can find it
J-Lens is great but only outputs a single token. I think a good multi-token J-Lens should do well on WorkspaceBench!
Show more
I find it odd that people still try to mock AI safety for being too abstract, sci-fi, and focused on a hypothetical far future
We have literally had multiple rogue agent swarms go around committing crimes. AI is obviously a big deal for people alive today. Just look up
Show more
>be me
>discover effective altruism
>apparently normal charity is inefficient
>why donate to random sad thing when spreadsheet can tell you optimal sad thing
>fair enough
>buy mosquito nets
>save lives
>numbers look good
>feel powerful
>couple years later
>someone asks an innocent question
>why only count people alive today
>huh
>future people matter too
>obviously
>my grandchildren shouldn't matter less just because they haven't spawned yet
>reasonable.jpg
>keep following logic
>what about their grandchildren
>also yes
>what about people in 500 years
>sure
>5000 years
>why not
>500 million years
>starting to get weird but morality is morality
>open calculator
>humanity could survive for an astronomically long time
>could colonize galaxy
>could have trillions upon trillions of descendants
>maybe digital people too
>maybe simulated civilizations
>maybe dyson spheres full of happy uploaded minds
>calculator starts smoking
>realize currently living humans are rounding error
>8 billion people suddenly looking extremely beta
>future contains potentially 10^something people
>can't even fit beneficiaries in google sheets
>new moral priority unlocked
>protect the long-term future
>stop thinking in units of "people helped"
>start thinking in "fraction of cosmic endowment preserved"
>malaria?
>terrible
>but only kills existing humans
>AI extinction could delete the entire light cone
>nuclear war could permanently derail civilization
>bad institutions could lock in terrible values for ten million years
>someone invents wrong constitution in 2140
>quadrillions suffer
>better fund governance workshop now
>friend says maybe we should improve hospitals
>explain opportunity cost
>friend says hospitals are full of actual sick people
>explain scope sensitivity
>friend stops inviting me to dinner
>need to decide what to fund
>easy
>expected value
>suppose project has one in a million chance of preventing extinction
>sounds tiny
>but extinction destroys 10^50 future lives
>multiply
>mother of god
>$10 million project has expected value of several galaxies
>charity evaluation complete
>someone asks where the one-in-a-million number came from
>expert judgement
>which expert
>us
>how calibrated
>extremely thoughtfully
>reduce estimate to one in ten million to be conservative
>still beats curing cancer by 38 orders of magnitude
>epistemic robustness achieved
>someone says maybe project doesn't work
>assign 20% chance
>still astronomical
>maybe project makes problem worse
>assign 5% chance
>still astronomical
>why 5
>because 30 felt pessimistic
>publish 46-page report
>contains seventeen sensitivity analyses
>every sensitivity analysis begins after assuming intervention has positive sign
>critic says you're multiplying enormous hypothetical stakes by extremely uncertain probabilities
>yes
>that's literally why it's important
>critic says the uncertainty might be structural rather than numerical
>make probability smaller
>critic says no, I mean maybe your model is wrong
>make probability smaller again
>critic begins rubbing temples
>discover AI safety
>perfect longtermist cause
>AI might kill everyone
>or create utopia
>or seize galaxy
>or tile universe with paperclips
>or create billions of conscious software minds
>finally a problem with numbers big enough for me
>start AI safety nonprofit
>mission: prevent dangerous AI
>hire smartest people available
>smartest people immediately start building better AI to understand dangerous AI
>interesting
>we must understand capabilities to understand safety
>we must scale models to study alignment
>we must race ahead so less responsible actors don't get there first
>we must deploy systems to learn how deployment can go wrong
>we must build the thing quickly because building the thing quickly is dangerous
>outsider asks why the people most worried about AI apocalypse all work at AI companies
>complicated field
>company releases stronger model
>very concerned
>company begins training even stronger model
>extremely concerned
>company raises $14 billion
>concern reaches unprecedented levels
>need to influence government
>future is at stake
>normal democratic process too slow
>politicians don't understand exponential curves
>public doesn't understand x-risk
>experts must guide them
>who counts as expert
>people who understand x-risk
>who understands x-risk
>our friends
>someone objects that this seems politically convenient
>explain we're representing future generations
>future generations unavailable for comment
>develop concept of value lock-in
>terrifying possibility that one ideology controls civilization forever
>therefore extremely important that civilization adopts correct values before lock-in
>whose values
>let's circle back
>begin with impartial morality
>end with small group of people deciding what quadrillions of hypothetical beings would want
>beautiful arc
>meanwhile actual humans keep doing annoying things
>voting wrong
>having parochial attachments
>loving family more than strangers
>caring about local community
>getting upset when told their suffering is cosmically negligible
>evolutionary biases everywhere
>explain that moral intuition cannot be trusted
>except intuition that future digital people count
>and intuition that extinction is uniquely bad
>and intuition that our probability estimates are sane
>and intuition that our institutional choices improve the future
>those intuitions survived peer review
>someone donates $5k to local homeless shelter
>inefficient
>could have funded 0.0000000000003% of an AI governance researcher
>think of all the simulated people you just killed
>okay maybe don't phrase it that way publicly
>PR team says "future generations deserve a voice"
>much better
>journalist asks what longtermism means
>say "future people matter"
>everyone agrees
>great
>journalist asks what follows from that
>well technically we should redirect enormous resources toward low-probability interventions affecting astronomical futures
>journalist raises eyebrow
>return to "future people matter"
>motte has entered the chat
>critic: of course future people matter
>me: glad we agree
>critic: I don't agree that your institute knows how to help them
>me: why do you hate our grandchildren
>eventually notice uncomfortable implication
>if future value dominates everything
>then helping people today mostly matters through effects on future
>education matters because future institutions
>health matters because future productivity
>democracy matters because future trajectory
>human beings slowly become instrumental variables in their own moral philosophy
>see starving child
>feel compassion
>check spreadsheet
>child's direct welfare contribution negligible
>but perhaps childhood nutrition improves national institutional quality
>compassion restored
>tell myself this is impartial altruism
>one day assistant asks obvious question
>"how do you know your intervention actually improves the far future?"
>silence
>open spreadsheet
>increase column width
>add confidence interval
>assistant asks again
>"no, I mean how do you know the sign is positive?"
>stare into cosmic light cone
>10^50 people staring back
>none of them exist
>none of them can tell me
>none of them can falsify my assumptions
>realize I have invented the perfect constituency
>infinitely important
>completely silent
>and always represented by me
Show more
