The Coxon cascade appears to have had an immediate impact on public opinion. New polling from Politico, taken over the last few days, finds that nearly two-thirds of Americans now say there is at least a moderate risk that AI will destroy humanity.

🌎🌍: CBS News has owned the ground across 4 continents this week: Middle East: @JonahPKaplan w the first look at damage caused at U.S. bases by Iranian missiles and drones West Africa: @camiloreports on the ground to interview deported Latin American migrants Eastern Europe: @aidan_stretch w an exclusive Zelenskyy interview on how Russia is personally targeting him Silicon Valley: @jolingkent lands interviews w both Dario Amodei and David Sacks on the emerging AI safety debate

Last month I wrote about how we can build a positive and safe future for everyone: 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.