@satyanadella extremely well put. I have been saying this, not as elegantly - we cannot rely on the disclosures of frontier LLMs alone: 1. These harnesses need to be constructed so that third parties can get involved in observability and transparency.. 2. As we get there we also can imagine users (enterprises) wanting to adapt the guardrails to their values, principles and business practices. One cannot imagine a global set of guardrails owned by the model creators. 3. No real business will be able to implement the enhanced capabilites of models if they remain black boxes, auditability, verification and compliance are essential premises to ensure that businesses can continue to operate showing duty of care. 4. Information securty architectures are consistent over decades, the AI architectures need to make room for us to be able to interface seamlessly, at speed and consistently - today all attempts by us are jerry rigged and band aids because we are trying to adapt to the speed of the model providers. If the AI industry doesn't support the simultaneous capability of the security industry things will stall. 5. To foster the diffusion of AI at speed and build trust we need to have momentum behind the conversation just initiated by Satya.

You should read my sequel to the ninja move post. I suggested that the original ninja move could actually backfire if we didn't change our approach as an industry to focus on benefits and instead turn to delivering this technology safely, securely yet still at pace. It is not possible to pace open source even if you got some frontier labs to collaborate switch would continue to define the pace.

Free wisdom for those of you opining on my last tweet. It's easy to cast individuals away because you disagree with something they did or their opinions. When I turned 40, I turned a corner and decided to appreciate the good in someone for their act, for the moment and for what they did. My friends are my friends and I respect many people for their achievements in various fields, but I wouldn't have them work on stuff In other areas. An absolutist bar on each human is a recipe for failure. I expect things from people, but I don't expect them to be perfect. If their heart is in the right place, and their intent on the matter at hand is well placed, I respect the effort.

The meeting at the WH on SI was an epic moment. The good and the great of AI (SI) showed up from all over, I was just happy to be in the room. First and foremost I felt that @realDonaldTrump showed us what a true leader is. He was thoughtful and focussed on ensuring that SI was developed at pace and was going to be deployed safely and securely. He encouraged the room to focus on the positive impacts of technology, demonstrate the true benefits of the technology for each and every one out there. His message was clear - engage with communities get grassroots support for what is going to be a pivotal moment for America and the world. He was statesmanlike and clearly focussed on the US winning the SI race. The focus needs to be how to ensure what is being built is safe and useful. There are enough laws and regulatory frameworks that allow for effective governance we don't need more. What we need is: 1. Accountability by the labs 2. we need SI to have the right APIs available for cybercontrols and third party governance and 3. We need equal focus on diffusion of this technology in a useful and effective manner. We all walked away with continued and renewed enthusiasm to bring on the SI future. When you get cyber companies focussing on furthering a technology you have already moved the needle.

Conceptually you can access APIs for control panels in the enterprise use case. The API and MCP is less of an issue - the access, audit, ownership of actions and liability is. In the enterprise use case, one who accesses is responsible.

This will be a bigger battle than anyone anticipates. It is only a matter of time before there is an Apple and Google version of Muse and possibly TikTok, in addition to the frontier LLM agents. Maybe a commerce agent from Amazon. Every app that is a services, marketplace or commerce app will need to existentially decide to open APIs for consumer agents to interact. Smaller players have no choice. Ad revenues are more than transaction fees, either the consumer benefits or distribution aggregators will demand a higher transaction fare. I know I don't want an agent for each app. I would like my agent to be able to do tasks I require. We can already see consumers getting trained on that behavior by the frontier labs. Those with network moats - restaurants, groceries, drivers might be able to withstand for a while, over time convenience and end user experience will win and they will have to align. Content moats (protected by copyright) could decide to allow agents or chose to hold on to the consumer interaction. I suspect other than the feeling of a lack of control, it won't change their economics. Commoditized back ends will need to worry, insurance, tickets, hotels, services - if they don't adapt new players will.

Alignment is less about jumping guardrails and setting the right constraints. It's about making sure the model wants to play by rules. The question becomes "whose rules". Think of edge cases. Your example is easy, we can all suggest the right answer here.

Sequel to AI Pacing I have now spent more time talking to people who run AI labs, Open Source projects and those in government and infrastructure. I am beginning to feel the NINJA move could backfire. I understand the pressure to come out and share where AI is "unmanageable ", and constantly share examples where it runs rogue. This fits in the category of "self-reporting" and an attempt to limit liability. Even the bleeding edge research examples are being cast in a negative light. Here are the consequences of the NINJA move. 1. They have successfully encouraged every law maker around the world to have an opinion, and in cases a poorly un-informed one. 2. By proposing pacing - they have introduced uncertainty in the AI infrastructure trade, because we really don't know when "un-pacing" will begin or what those conditions will be. 3. The notion that a few leaders can collaborate and self pace is illusory, it takes one breaking ranks to start the race again, it could be a player in a different country or open source or an AI Lab itself. 4. There will be a regulatory body created as a consequence of this and it will be impossible to balance every stakeholder in this process. 5. No remedies, tools, solutions are being proposed other than "compute spent on safety", there is no mention of security (which will hamper adoption) The recommendation is to fix alignment - Alignment is a hard problem - to fix alignment one shouldn't have trained models with "negative behavior". Alignment is a combination of moral standards, right and wrong and guardrails. Whose sensibilities will we align to? Alignment edge cases are hard. I look forward to learning more on this. Guardrailing attempts post training have not shown precision. Distillation makes it worse, so AI will continue down it's path of getting smarter, while we will be chasing it to ensure alignment and building guardrails. The AI labs have gone from being research projects to wanting to be the largest businesses in the world if they want to continue their progress. Transition from research winners to improving the lot of humanity and partnering with enterprises. Act like the largest companies in the world: - Demonstrate the positive impacts of AI and how all of us benefit. - Show enterprises how you can collaborate to solve real world problems and progress innovation safely and securely. Post an example every day how you helped. - Solve the problem with a few players and demonstrate leadership so others can follow. It's time to rebuild the brand of AI - any marketing expert will tell you, this Ninja move has done more to harm the brand of AI and will take a while to rebuild. #letsbepositive# in our actions and our narrative.

Congrats team. @matanSF one of the more relentless founders. If there will be half a trillion of coding ARR out there in the next few years, there's room for many players. Execution, speed and scale matter.

THE PACING IS A NINJA MOVE - But be careful what you campaign for. In any competitive sport, I have seldom found people exercise restraint - they usually have a capture the flag mentality. Don't I want to be the best? The first? The only? - this is how we have been programmed. In the AI race, winning is existential. All AI labs have to race to generate revenue to be able to sustain the enormous amount of committed capital to "not be left behind" in the infrastructure build. There isn't enough room for many. So the desire to slow down is puzzling, but perhaps if the whole system slows down, the rules of winning can be the same for all. Do we have a problem that AI could be a killer? Model capability is a tale of two cities, at one end the models are showing their prowess in tasks like cyber or math as seen recently, so there is likely a probability that the models get extremely powerful and could precipitate a world event. At the same time, in many domains the lack of training data makes the models woefully inadequate. Even in areas like cyber - the LLMs aren't great at the edge cases and generally not economical for the defender case, but great for the attackers. Funnily - in all their "concern" it is still an uphill battle to get them to expose APIs for third party security companies like ours, for us to build robust security for AI adoption. It's slow progress. So why do this? I do believe deep down this is a commercial strategy. A ninja strategy. The liability associated with a model gone rogue has the potential of wiping out the economic opportunity of any frontier company. How do you best show the duty of care? You show that you care. How do you make sure you don't lose out to your competitors? You get them to do the same! If that becomes the industry standard for duty of care, you have a collective first line of defense. Who do you get to govern this? "Yourself" - that is what I think will become the achilles heel. The risk? Open source! China! Countries other than the US! So you ask for a global agreement, because you don't want to be sued in other markets who might even be more punitive. But that was an afterthought - that afterthought will cost. Thks pacing campaign rhetoric has become the talk of the town and it might work. Everyone has jumped into the debate. Both sides of the house, nation states. CEOs (present company included). It's more fun discussing the evil of AI than basics of economic affordability or international trade. The result: We might end up with AI safety boards, regulation in micro jurisdictiona and a fragmented fabric of laws around the world which would make compliance and liability a challenge. Perhaps the intended consequence of pacing would have an unintended consequence of a labyrinth of regulation. Regulation destined to cause a slowdown. Who wins? Simplicity. Open source? Open source is already on its way to gaining more adoption, this could drive it further, faster, each iteration of open source gets closer to frontier LLMs - making it viable to deploy them for more and more use cases. In the end, how will the evaluators know as AI gets smarter, that AI hasn't figured their role out and outsmarts them at their task! That will be the next frontier :)