If you would like a taste of what my life is like right now, I wrote this in my book draft— "It’s weird to think about how different aliens may be from us. Maybe they’re 100 feet tall. Or 6 inches tall. Maybe they’re not tall at all because they have 100 legs and look like long strands of spaghetti. Maybe they have giant balloon heads, 40 arms, and 70 boobs." —and my fact-checker flagged the last sentence as a false claim, writing: "Highly unlikely on Earth-like biology. Mammary number correlates with litter size in several species, suggesting an evolutionary pattern, and is limited by the energetic cost of lactation."

Yeah, and my take overall is that you can believe that the threat is potentially real AND have concerns about onerous regulations that create a monopoly or duopoly or otherwise restrict the right to say, for example, open source AI technology, AND while knowing full well we are in a potentially existential battle with China about who can dominate AI. Indeed, all of these things SHOULD be considered in the analysis. @adgo and I tried to explain a sensible First Amendment approach here, which both addresses the potential of catastrophic harm, which almost exclusively comes from when AI is given delegated authority, from helping keep the state’s grubby mitts off of what counts as knowledge. Also, it's a good reminder that if you place too much hope in the idea that code is speech and the First Amendment protects it, the law is decreasingly on your side. But there are other ways of protecting inquiry, information, knowledge, and truth.

One prominent theory says that long before our fish ancestors left the water, they did a lot of this, briefly scooting from pond to pond. Slowly, some evolved to be so good at scooting around on land and breathing air that they became fully amphibious.

I can't predict the AI future, and I'm very unsure about what the right strategy or policies should be moving forward. What I do know is that people who scoff at the idea that we may be in grave danger have not read enough about AI.

Guys, sure, there are lots of "laws on the books" that apply to AI companies. But there is no such law preventing the creation of a model capable of rapid recursive self-improvement and if we get out-of-control superintelligence we can't just sue it after the fact!

There are currently zero things more important than "don't die to AI" becoming a bipartisan project rather than a Democrat-polarized issue. If you have any political capital you can spend on this, do it now, I beg of you. Life or death.

Capability vs. Safety resource allocation: Nuclear: 60/40 Aviation: 60/40 Medical devices: 20/80 AI: 99/1 Do I understand the situation correctly?

The Asahi Illusion. Nothing in the center is actually brighter, but your brain sees a burst of light. Primates and rats react similarly, hinting at shared visual perception across species

I really wish the rise of LLMs didn't come along with catastrophic job loss, massive privacy invasions, and maybe also the apocalypse. Because when you put those side effects aside, it is the COOLEST MOST WILD TECHNOLOGY EVER.