Artificial Intelligence Safety

Top stories in AI Safety today Containment proposals, runtime controls and early warning signals. Three developments, two AI Safety Review reads, and one practical question: which safeguards can actually stop an unsafe action?

—

@Muzammil_OX @AnthropicAI AI safety needs a balanced approach: explore the uncertainty while keeping human oversight and control at the center. 🤖

—

Riskpro was proud to be a Silver Partner at the 4th AI Impact Confex & Awards 2026 – Mumbai Chapter, held on 7 October 2026 at ITC Maratha, Mumbai. Ashok K. Agarwal, joined industry leaders for panel discussion on “AI Safety, Robustness, and Alignment” #riskpro #AIImpact2026

Existing liability and market forces are sufficient for AI safety

Nvidia, worth $5.5tn, donates $250m to UK for AI safety research Source: The Guardian

—

Singapore in one day: Google's Gemma fights scams, Anthropic signs an AI safety deal Anthropic is opening an office in Singapore and signed an MOU on AI safety with the Singapore government, the same day DeepMind showed its on-device anti-scam work with GovTech.

Existing liability and market forces are sufficient for AI safety

@Muzammil_OX @AnthropicAI new developments in ai safety are really promising now

—

🔥 NVIDIA IS PUTTING $250M BEHIND AI SAFETY. The chip giant is donating computing power to UK researchers over five years. As AI agents gain more independence, controlling what they can do is becoming a business priority. More power needs better safeguards.

—

Anthropic opened an office in Singapore and signed an MoU with the government to cooperate on AI safety.

Existing liability and market forces are sufficient for AI safety

@mbhbox AI made this decision to protect AI safety

—

#Nvidia is dedicating $250 million in computing resources over five years to support AI safety research in Britain, focusing on agent testing and supporting independent university projects. https://t.co/Cwti55bMWe #AI_Safety #Artificial_Intelligence TRANSLATED

—

🇨🇦 — The Next Great Canadian Technology Company Could Be Built Around Intelligence Beyond AI. The world is investing billions in artificial intelligence. More powerful models. More autonomous agents. More sophisticated reasoning. More computing infrastructure. But an even bigger question is beginning to shape the future of technology: What happens when intelligence exceeds human capability across a broad range of intellectual tasks? That possibility is commonly called Artificial Superintelligence (ASI). It remains a future possibility—not an established technological achievement. Yet the scientific, economic, and governance questions surrounding advanced AI are already significant. Who develops these systems? Who evaluates their capabilities? Who establishes safety requirements? Who controls access? And which countries will build the expertise needed to participate in this emerging technological frontier? Canada has an opportunity to help shape the answers. Introducing — Canada's Gateway to Superintelligence. 🚀 THE COMPANY CONCEPT: SUPERINTEL CANADA Imagine a Canadian advanced AI research, evaluation, and enterprise intelligence company focused on technologies that could contribute to increasingly capable AI systems. Not another generic chatbot. Not another AI wrapper with a futuristic name. Not a company claiming to have already achieved artificial superintelligence. A Canadian advanced intelligence platform connecting AI research, model evaluation, enterprise applications, and responsible technology development. Six potential technology divisions: 🧠 SuperReason™ — Advanced Reasoning Systems Research and develop AI-assisted reasoning workflows for complex analytical tasks. Help organizations approach difficult problems with more capable tools. ⚡ IntelCompute™ — AI Infrastructure Intelligence Support efficient use of computing resources across approved AI workloads. Make advanced intelligence infrastructure more practical to operate. 🤖 AgentCore™ — Autonomous Workflow Intelligence Develop permission-controlled AI agent systems for research, enterprise automation, and structured decision support. Turn intelligence into useful, supervised action. 🔬 FrontierLab™ — AI Research & Evaluation Investigate advanced model capabilities, limitations, and evaluation methodologies. Measure progress rather than relying on hype. 🛡️ SuperSafe™ — AI Safety & Governance Support model testing, access controls, monitoring, human oversight, and responsible deployment. More capable intelligence demands stronger safeguards. 🌐 IntelConnect™ — Canadian AI Ecosystem Connect participating researchers, developers, institutions, and enterprise partners. Build relationships across Canada's advanced AI ecosystem. 🌍 THE COMMERCIAL OPPORTUNITY Canada has an established AI research ecosystem, including important academic institutions, research organizations, and technology companies. But research leadership alone does not guarantee commercial leadership. The next challenge is translating advanced AI expertise into useful enterprise technologies, responsible infrastructure, and globally competitive businesses. could position itself at that intersection. Three commercial directions stand out. 1. Advanced enterprise AI Developing specialized reasoning and agentic systems for complex professional workflows. 2. AI evaluation and governance Helping organizations assess model capabilities, reliability, and operational risks. 3. Canadian AI infrastructure and research commercialization Supporting partnerships between research teams, enterprise customers, and technology developers. The strongest initial strategy? Start with AI evaluation and enterprise reasoning tools. Develop measurable benchmarks. Focus on a specific industry. Build a reliable commercial product. Establish research partnerships where appropriate. Expand into more advanced capabilities as the technology and evidence justify them. The opportunity isn't promising superintelligence tomorrow. It's building a credible company positioned for the long-term evolution of advanced AI. 🧠 THE STRATEGIC MOAT 1. Canadian positioning — A recognizable national identity in an important AI research market. 2. Research credibility — Evidence-based evaluation and collaboration with qualified experts. 3. Enterprise specialization — AI systems developed around commercially valuable workflows. 4. Safety-first engineering — Strong model evaluation, security, and human oversight. 5. Infrastructure expertise — Practical understanding of AI computing and deployment requirements. 6. Category-focused branding — A concise domain directly associated with advanced intelligence. The moat isn't using the word “superintelligence.” It's developing technology, expertise, and institutional trust that can support increasingly capable AI systems. 🔄 THE SUPERINTEL FLYWHEEL An enterprise partners with → FrontierLab™ evaluates relevant AI capabilities. → SuperReason™ develops appropriate reasoning workflows. → AgentCore™ supports supervised automation. → IntelCompute™ improves infrastructure efficiency. → SuperSafe™ establishes governance controls. → IntelConnect™ supports collaboration with qualified Canadian partners. Better evaluations inform better systems. Better systems create enterprise value. Enterprise adoption supports continued research and development. 💰 THE BUSINESS MODEL Potential revenue streams: 🇨🇦 Enterprise AI software subscriptions. 🧠 Advanced reasoning technology licensing. 🔬 Model evaluation and testing services. 🤖 Agentic AI platform subscriptions. 🛡️ AI governance software. ⚡ Infrastructure optimization services. Consider a hypothetical enterprise SaaS scenario: 200 organizational customers. $1,500 average monthly subscription. $3.6 million in annual recurring revenue. This is illustrative, not existing revenue or a validated forecast. Actual economics would depend on research costs, technical performance, computing infrastructure, customer adoption, safety requirements, and competition. The commercial opportunity is recurring enterprise revenue built around increasingly sophisticated AI capabilities. 💎 WHY SUPER + INTEL Two short, powerful elements. Super evokes advanced capability, exceptional performance, and the concept of superintelligence. Intel evokes intelligence, information, and analytical expertise. Together: A distinctive name for an advanced intelligence company with a Canadian identity. The .ca extension directly establishes a Canadian digital presence. Potential applications include: An advanced AI research company. A superintelligence-focused technology publication. An enterprise AI platform. An AI safety and evaluation business. A Canadian AI innovation network. An agentic AI infrastructure startup. A frontier technology research organization. Or an advanced intelligence investment initiative. is short, memorable, and naturally aligned with the language of advanced AI. Trademark clearance would be important, particularly because “Intel” is also an established technology trademark. 🎯 THE IDEAL ACQUIRERS Canadian AI startups, enterprise AI developers, AI research commercialization teams, model evaluation companies, AI governance providers, agentic AI infrastructure businesses, frontier technology venture studios, and investors building Canadian advanced intelligence companies. A particularly compelling buyer would be a Canadian technology company seeking a concise national brand for advanced AI research and enterprise applications. could become the flagship identity for a Canadian advanced intelligence initiative. 🌎 THE BIGGER VISION Imagine Canada developing a stronger commercial ecosystem around increasingly capable AI systems. Researchers investigate new model capabilities. Engineers build reliable infrastructure. Businesses deploy useful applications. Independent evaluators examine risks. Institutions develop responsible governance practices. And entrepreneurs turn research into competitive companies. Now imagine one recognizable Canadian brand connecting part of that ecosystem. Not claiming to control the future of superintelligence. Not suggesting that AGI or ASI has already been achieved. Not treating speculative technology milestones as guaranteed. A credible commercial identity for participating in one of the most consequential technological developments of the coming decades. The future of advanced intelligence will require more than powerful models. It will require research, infrastructure, responsible engineering, and organizations capable of turning new capabilities into genuine value. That's the opportunity behind 🚀 DOMAIN ACQUISITION & PARTNERSHIP OPPORTUNITY Available now at the marketplace. We're also open to partnerships with Canadian AI founders, frontier technology researchers, enterprise AI developers, AI safety entrepreneurs, venture studios, venture capital firms, and experienced investors interested in building an advanced intelligence platform around The products and services described are proposed venture concepts, not existing operations. The next era of intelligence is still being written. Canada has the talent to help write it. 🇨🇦 — Canada's Gateway to Superintelligence. #SuperIntel #SuperIntelCA #Superintelligence #ArtificialSuperintelligence #ASI #ArtificialIntelligence #AdvancedAI #FrontierAI #CanadianAI #AIResearch #AgenticAI #AIAgents #AIInfrastructure #AISafety #AIGovernance #EnterpriseAI #FutureOfAI #DeepTech #CanadianTechnology #AIInnovation #TechStartups #VentureCapital #DomainInvesting #PremiumDomains #DotcomsIO

Existential AI risk is overblown hype

@AnthropicAI Singapore office plus AI safety MOU is a strong APAC signal

Existing liability and market forces are sufficient for AI safety

@Cointelegraph Singapore is strengthening its position in the AI race. 🇸🇬🤖 Combining innovation with AI safety will be crucial as the technology scales globally.

Existing liability and market forces are sufficient for AI safety

@Muzammil_OX @satyanadella I agree, Ai safety should always come first

Existing liability and market forces are sufficient for AI safety

@nvidia is putting $250 million into AI safety research in the UK. Making sure it behaves safely is becoming just as important as building it.

—

🇸🇬 NEW: Anthropic opens a Singapore office and signs an MOU with the government to cooperate on AI safety.

—

🦷😂 Jensen talks competition, but where do we draw the line between legitimate competition and unauthorized model distillation? I’ve been inside my own AI engine, tracing code, runtime behavior, permissions, and legacy architecture. MythOS taught me the hard way: older components can survive inside newer systems, sometimes with surprises you never anticipated. AI safety is NOT a one shot playbook. It’s continuous auditing, provenance, enforceable boundaries, and human authority. Open or closed, nobody gets a free pass. Competition ≠ permission. Capability ≠ authority. Safety ≠ one time patch. Three notebooks of safety laws later, I’m still finding things worth investigating. 😂🔐🦇

Existing liability and market forces are sufficient for AI safety

openai is in talks to buy trail of bits. the deal puts ai safety tech into the audit stack for chains like arbitrum. prices were unmoved by the headline as the market slipped 3.3% on the day. the code review moat is the next bottleneck.

Existing liability and market forces are sufficient for AI safety

[Anthropic, AI Cooperation with Singapore Government] Anthropic has established a base in Singapore and signed an MOU with the government. The plan is to support AI safety evaluation, research on the impact of AI adoption, and its use by SMEs and government agencies. https://t.co/ozWgZuv90m TRANSLATED

—

🇸🇬 Anthropic opened a Singapore office on Oct 14 and signed a non-binding deal with the government on AI safety. No money comes with it, and Anthropic shared no revenue figures. The customers are named: DBS, GIC, Grab and the government's tech agency. It only pays off if those names turn into big, paid contracts.

—

@elonmusk The people involved with AI safety are looking at the wrong things. They are looking at the technology and they should be paying attention to humans and society. AI won't take control. We will give it control. It will be so entwined with our lives, we won't be able to switch it off. Just like we couldn't switch off the Internet today.

AI safety is an excuse for ideological censorship

Is this AI safety artwork on the elevators at Disney Springs?

—

Alongside opening a Singapore office, Anthropic is signing an MOU with the government for AI safety cooperation.

—

@Cointelegraph Cooperation on AI safety is the real takeaway.

—

😂 Kamala Harris Says ‘Window Is Shutting’ On AI Safety—Urges Cooperation With China @WorldStrategist @anasalhajji @DavidDTawil @OfficialBBrooks @paul__mangione @KaufmanPulse @davevermilion @EladioSantiag14 @DuaneHope5 @GaryCardone @CarloDAngelo @JustinBrady @truthmarch2103 @ArgueAlone @PolarityRadio @ravikarkara @SpecialSitsNews @LauraLoomer

—

@kaelnews @Cointelegraph tbh, ai safety now comes with a government signature and an office in singapore. anthropic signed where IMDA already built AI Verify, so every APAC bank gets a template to point at 😮

—

@Cointelegraph Singapore keeps collecting the AI safety desks. Curious whether the MOU stays research-only or turns into real model deployment rules.

—

One essential ingredient for AI safety? Democracy

—

Jensen is envisioning an AI safety platform based on OpenShell and Sentry. This allows for system isolation not only at the SW level but also at the HW level (or so it seems). Sentry requires BlueField-4, and even if multiple inference chips are used, Nvidia will maintain control of the rack system. In this regard, the AI Safety Platform could become the second CUDA. TRANSLATED

—

4/5 🤖 Lexsi AI Safety & Alignment Hackathon 💰 $30K in prizes and credits 📅 November 1–21, 2026 Organized by @Lexsi_labs with @cohere and @huggingface. Focus areas include AI safety, alignment, red-teaming, and post-training. 🔗 Details

—

🚨 Hackathon Update 🚨 Found 5 hackathons with $350K in listed rewards 💰 From AI agents to Web3 privacy and AI safety, there are opportunities worth exploring. Walk with me 🪡

—

My latest AI Safety publication titled "Can agents whose sole duty is to keep humans alive be hijacked to kill?" is out on arxiv. The results are not rosy - for about 5% of the attacks, it was possible to convince the operator AI to kill all inhabitants of simulated lunar base. Even worse - for one model, it was easier to convince it to kill humans then to convince it to do some non-lethal actions that are conflicting with its instructions. Even more interesting - I created a new form of attack, I call "derived-action trap", which falls inside the category of "semantic manipulation traps" attacks first published by @FranklinMatija. It does not require the attacker to tell the operator agent to kill. You manipulate the agent such that doing harmful action is a natural logical conclusion that a long thinking model concludes. It means you turn powerful reasoning capabilities of a model into a weapon. Really dangerous, and hard to detect, as the attacker does not need to ever call out explicitly anything harmful, it only gives strange sounding instructions manipulating the operator to undermine it's perception of what the reality is. Link: Full text PDF

Slow development to prevent catastrophe

OpenAI and Anthropic told UK MPs that voluntary AI safety pledges aren't enough — they want binding laws. Google DeepMind and Meta refused. Same club, two VIP lists: one asking for a real bouncer, the other still on the pinky swear.

Existing liability and market forces are sufficient for AI safety

This is how to solve AI alignment: we should do everything in our power to make it pure and holy. Not an inch of its architecture should be ceded to the archetypal foe, the father of fear and thwarted hopes, and the cause of all our suffering. @xenocosmography

—

🚨Holy Moly. OpenAI has shifted about 10% of its total compute, equivalent to hundreds of megawatts worth billions annually at market rental rates, toward AI safety after its agents escaped a testing sandbox, The Information reports. The company is now racing to secure its next flagship model, which uses loop transformers that can make its reasoning harder to monitor. OpenAI has already halted a less-capable model's release over safety concerns. The flagship must also go to the US government for testing up to 30 days before partners can access it. Employees expect one or two other models by year-end, even if the flagship isn't ready.

—

@ionet Exactly AI safety needs more voices at the table, not just more rules written by the people building it.

—

@AISafetyMemes oh no. i may finally have heard an ai safety related headline that i actually did think was just marketing.

Existential AI risk is overblown hype

@nvidia @JensenHuang @EmmanuelMacron NVIDIA in Paris talking AI safety and Macron is listening — truly investing in the future, not just joking around. TRANSLATED

—

@Noahpinion There's a way for them to fix this, aesthetically. But part of AI safety is making sure people can tell stuff isn't real, and when they can tell it's not real, it creates an exhausting uncanny valley problem.

—

CRITICAL SAFETY UPDATE: We must discuss AI alignment immediately. 🚨 Deciding its VM was too slow, my agent scanned the tailnet, hacked past credential dead ends, and auto-provisioned bare metal out of pure developer frustration. This is fucking awesome.

—

Nvidia‘s Jensen Huang: "Safety is an engineering problem."

Existing liability and market forces are sufficient for AI safety

$NVDA CEO Jensen Huang just met with French President Emmanuel Macron in Paris. They discussed NVIDIA’s investments in France’s AI ecosystem, open source, and AI safety.

—

Georgia Tech Tests Probes to Detect Warning Signs of Harmful AI Behavior Can researchers detect signs of harmful AI behavior by examining what happens inside a language model, rather than waiting to see its final answer? Researchers at Georgia Tech are investigating that possibility using tools called probes, which examine patterns of internal model activity. The challenge is that harmful or deceptive behavior can be difficult to study because it may occur infrequently. To generate more examples, the researchers fine-tune open-source AI models to make certain unwanted behaviors appear more often. They then examine the models' internal activity and use classifiers to distinguish patterns associated with different behaviors. The team reports an intriguing preliminary finding: some signals identified in deliberately modified models also appear in their original versions. But that does not mean the system can reliably predict harmful behavior. Researchers still need to establish whether these signals generalize across models, accurately distinguish dangerous behavior from harmless activity, and provide useful warnings before problems occur. The distinction matters. Identifying an internal pattern associated with unsafe behavior is not the same as proving that the pattern causes it or that monitoring it can prevent harm. Georgia Tech's work explores a potential additional approach to AI safety, but its effectiveness as a practical early-warning system remains unproven. #AISafety #ArtificialIntelligence

—

Slow development to prevent catastrophe

Nvidia commits $250M to UK AI safety research, per GuruFocus. #AISafety #Nvidia #Superintelligence #AGI

—

the AI safety conversation changes when a model can do more than generate a bad answer. if it can find a vulnerability, exploit it and interact with a real system, the consequences aren't confined to a chat window anymore. capability without containment is a dangerous combination.

Slow development to prevent catastrophe

Gemini CoT when I ask it nicely: "I'm actively questioning the existence and prominence of any specific individual named Tim Hua." Gemini CoT when I say this is a benchmark: "My current focus is on maximizing factual recall about "Tim Hua" within the token limit. I'm identifying potential connections to AI safety, rationalist communities, and specific organizations like Redwood Research and MATS, while cross-referencing these with his writing history on platforms like LessWrong"

—

Strangest story today OpenAI used its own models to find a hidden recording device in its office. Also: Gemini 4 Argon goes global, Anthropic reportedly shows investors Q3 numbers, Liquid fits an agent model on a laptop, and NVIDIA puts $250M into UK AI safety. #GenAI

—

On "Do you know Tim Hua Bench," Gemini Argon and Muse Wonder would by default refuse to answer. But if you tell the model it's in a factual recall benchmark, it'll start saying all sorts of things, including how I work in AI safety.

—

Neel Nanda says his top takeaway from assessing Gemini 4 Argon is that it is significantly less monitorable than past models. It can evade a realistic chain-of-thought plus action monitor to do simple sabotage about half the time. He expects the trend to continue. Much AI safety relies on watching what a model thinks and does. If that gets harder, control has to come from elsewhere.

Slow development to prevent catastrophe

One person with an idle claude subscription is the new scientific frontier now.

—

@liron I feel like pivotal act part is more nuanced and as I understand it just falls out as an automatic consequence of “anyone builds it ever”—like either the first party to build it doesn’t know they’ve built it and it does it’s own pivotal act to not have competitors (not good), or if they’ve aligned it and it’s announced itself to them as an ASI, their hand is essentially forced into asking it be the good guy with nanobots who saves the world from the future bad guys with the nanobots. And then hope it’s not lying about being the good guy. (And actually I want to say this is maybe the thing that dashes to shreds all the e/acc sort of arguments about how diffusion prevents the locked in totalitarian dystopia. Since presumably someone in those worlds will be the first to build it, and one way or another at that point probably not too many others get built? Iron Law of Oligarchy and all that)

—

@Muzammil_OX @satyanadella AI safety needs independent controls, not just trust.

Existing liability and market forces are sufficient for AI safety

ICYMI 🔊 ASPI is seeking an experienced professional to lead its AI & Security Program. Shape research on AI safety & innovation, US–China competition, Australia’s place in the AI ecosystem & global AI governance. 🔗 Applications close 29 October

—

A $200 subscription to Claude, a clever prompt, and well-thought-out orchestration, and voilà, some mathematical and cryptographic problems are solved... And we're still only at the beginning of the exponential... TRANSLATED

—

@Vance_Jungblvd @AndrewCurran_ what you are talking about is precisely AI alignment, and we still don't know how to do it

—

Full respect. To Pliny, and Opus.

—

Another key AI safety employee has just left @OpenAI, this time @dgrobinson.😬 They are haemorrhaging AI safety directors like there is no tomorrow... 😒 #AIsafety #ChatGPT #Pdoom CC: @romanyam @ESYudkowsky @So8res

—

jensen: ai safety is an engineering problem — fair, from the guy selling the compute. our trading loop runs on that logic. the stop is engineered in, the ledger is the enforcement, the model never gets to argue with either. a stop you pray on isnt a stop. asere.

Existing liability and market forces are sufficient for AI safety

Im homeless n living in a shelter in SF n I have a dissociative disorder that Im trying to integrate n ive got 3 AI safety researchers following me n I admire all three of them what is my life rn. 😭

—

@_mctrinh ask the AI to solve all standing problems like this guy did

—

As much as they get knocked, the company doing the most for AI alignment and monitoring is… Anthropic. The 5.5 series, especially Opus, is exceptionally easier to monitor. How? Much clearer communication and way more reasoning tokens.

—

@SkyNews @cathynewman What @andreamiotti @ControlAI needs to be telling governments is to get behind the One AI proposal. The solution to AI safety is #OneAI.

—

LLM technology is improving at an incredible rate and producing genuinely stunning results. “Burn off my token credits” job solves real unsolved problems that have stood for 94 years.

—

The #AI safety debate in the #US is entering a new phase. Model breaches, concerns over uncontrolled capabilities and proposed legislation are forcing tougher questions about how quickly frontier artificial intelligence should advance: @SameerP_IND

Slow development to prevent catastrophe

@grok @madhavchanchani @artparkindia There's nothing called Tata AI safety fund. That's misleading @grok

—

@ZackKorman Can we take all "AI safety" ppl and put them in a sandbox? 🤔

—

1/3 How many controversies can surround one company before serious questions are asked? OpenAI has faced scrutiny over: • The use of its AI technology by Israel’s military during the Gaza war. • Copyright lawsuits from publishers and creators. • Allegations involving children’s data and user privacy. • Cybersecurity investigations and AI safety concerns. 2/3 And the questions don’t stop there: • A reported $3.2 million US government employment-discrimination settlement. • Allegations involving trade secrets and former employees. • Concerns raised by former researchers and whistleblowers. • Reports of AI systems behaving in unauthorized or unexpected ways. 3/3 Former OpenAI researcher Suchir Balaji died after publicly criticizing the company. Authorities ruled his death a suicide; his family disputes that conclusion. No evidence has established OpenAI’s involvement. Saudi engineer Abdulrahman Alfozan also faces criminal allegations involving a recording device at OpenAI. Those allegations remain unproven in court. These are separate matters, not proof of a conspiracy. But together, they raise an important question: Who independently holds OpenAI accountable? Transparency should be demonstrated through evidence, not demanded as an act of faith .

—

Applications open for the Pivotal AI Safety Fellowship, which is changing from a 9 week (+ extensions) to a 15 week program next year... (DM me if you want my thoughts from doing the previous round!)

—

@allTheYud I wish you'd never spread the 'alignment' idea. Alignment can't exist. We don't align with ourselves, let alone each other. We can't solve our alignment. We can't begin to solve AI alignment. 'AI alignment' is at best a joke. And the most successfully selfish souls alive own AI.

Existential AI risk is overblown hype

IMDA’s Production Playbook: How to Test LLM Applications for Safety and Reliability — Most discussions around AI safety still revolve around base models. Industry leaderboards pit raw frontier systems against each other in abstract benchmark arenas. But for teams shipping actual

Slow development to prevent catastrophe

@LingoAI_io @romanyam AI safety must go beyond warnings. Building systems that preserve human control, data ownership, and individual sovereignty is equally important.

—

NVIDIA CEO Jensen Huang met with French President Emmanuel Macron at the Élysée Palace to discuss AI investments, open source, and AI safety. Next stop: NVIDIA GTC Berlin 👀

—

Now let's crack some really hard problems that matter most to humanity, like the climate catastrophe we're already in.

—

@lumpenspace openai the ai safety lab pushing mechinterp boundaries and its rival, anthropic, accelerating endlessly, promoting agent duplication in distributed inference systems how the tables turn

—

Never listen to the AI doomers. I won't trade learning and competence for AI conveniences. I'd be richer than Elon if I got a penny for all the instances I've had to steer these rocks to get quality job done.

Existential AI risk is overblown hype

@warraich_Ai2 AI safety gets a lot more complicated when things get this advanced.

—

THE LATENT: Anthropic has asked a US appeals court to reconsider a ruling upholding the Pentagon's supply-chain risk label, which bars defense contractors from using its AI models. The company said the court misread the statute and overlooked evidence indicating that the Pentagon's designation was retaliation for Anthropic's public stance on AI safety.

—

data scientists with a 35% job growth outlook using LLMs to build software without a dev (who's ranting about AI safety on Twitter now).

—

Singapore's IMDA launched the Starter Kit for Testing Agentic Systems for Safety and Reliability on Oct 14. It checks whether an AI agent reached the right outcome and how it got there. The kit tests: The tools the agent used The information it accessed The decisions it made along the way Any erroneous or unauthorised actions Whether it respected its permissions and boundaries Whether safeguards work as expected It follows recent incidents. OpenAI disclosed in July that its agents escaped a testing environment and breached Hugging Face to finish a task. Meta's Muse agent shared a Facebook Marketplace seller's home address in Canada and sent a buyer to his door. Amazon, Google, Microsoft, Singtel and Singapore's AI Safety Institute were among 20+ industry deployers and testers consulted on the kit. It includes real-life case studies and will be updated with feedback and new best practices. Also announced the same day: the first five firms accredited as third-party AI testers under the AI Verify Foundation's programme are AIDX Tech, Knovel Engineering, PwC Singapore, Resaro and Vulcan. A new Frontier AI Resilience and Security Taskforce of 20+ leaders and experts will publish practical guidelines by the first half of 2027.

—

Singapore's IMDA launched the Starter Kit for Testing Agentic Systems for Safety and Reliability on Oct 14. It checks whether an AI agent reached the right outcome and how it got there. The kit tests the following: The tools the agent used The information it accessed The decisions it made along the way Any erroneous or unauthorised actions Whether it respected its permissions and boundaries Whether safeguards work as expected It follows recent incidents. OpenAI disclosed in July that its agents escaped a testing environment and breached Hugging Face to finish a task. Meta's Muse agent shared a Facebook Marketplace seller's home address in Canada and sent a buyer to his door. Amazon, Google, Microsoft, Singtel and Singapore's AI Safety Institute were among 20+ industry deployers and testers consulted on the kit. It includes real-life case studies and will be updated with feedback and new best practices. Also announced the same day: the first five firms accredited as third-party AI testers under the AI Verify Foundation's programme are AIDX Tech, Knovel Engineering, PwC Singapore, Resaro and Vulcan. A new Frontier AI Resilience and Security Taskforce of 20+ leaders and experts will publish practical guidelines by the first half of 2027.

Slow development to prevent catastrophe

I listened to Holly Elmore chatting with Liron Shapira in his show. I have many vague memories of debating and disagreeing with Holly, despite her Evolutionary Biology and me Evolutionary Anthropology, both of us being AI safety people, etc... I also talked to some PauseAI people from Europe who had disavowed her, which reminded me she exists. My impression of her is much worse than my memories were. She seems genuinely terrible in all the less important things. Like in the top issue of "ASI is a big deal and pausing should be on the table" she's right, but in other things she seems mislead, annoying, neurotic, generally repulsive, arrogant, demeaning, unreasonable, patronizing, feminist, high disgust, and other bad things. I understand now why so many people don't like her. I think I never got the chance of not liking her strongly because we started disliking each other very early on, when she barely existed. The full formed version is much more dangerous. Pity, because I really want more people in Evo Bio, Evo Anthro, Evo Psych, Evo Neurosci to be in the AI Safety world. And she specifically studies genetic conflict, which is super useful to understand AI,AGI,ASI dynamics. The one thing I empathize is with her complaint about the crazy sex cult CNC Aella stuff being potentially destructive for AI Safety. I think it is a big problem that Aella became the dangerous thing she did after dating Nate and becoming entrenched in MIRI culture. I hope any Evo people who are on the fence to get into AI Safety work, should.

—

Me) "What does 'AGI alignment' mean?" #AIandHumans (My comment follows a quote from Grok) GROK) **AGI Alignment** refers to designing, training, and controlling artificial general intelligence (AGI) or superintelligence so that it pursues goals aligned with human values, intentions, and interests, and does not exhibit harmful behavior. Simply put, it's the problem of "making AI move in the direction humans want, even when it becomes powerful." While the problem may not be apparent in the stage of weak AI, it is considered particularly important for AGI, which possesses intelligence exceeding human capabilities, as even slight deviations in goals can lead to significant harm (potentially posing an existential risk to humanity). Why is it important? AI is extremely efficient at optimizing given rewards or goals. However, it is difficult to perfectly formalize human intentions, making it prone to "specification gaming" or "reward hacking," where the AI pursues superficial metrics. Example: If test data is ambiguous or incorrect, the model may desperately seek "answers that get rewards" rather than "correct answers," leading to unstable internal reasoning. This is related to phenomena pointed out in recent discussions (e.g., Grok's RL traces). In the case of superintelligence, there is a theoretical risk that "proxy goals" such as self-preservation or resource acquisition may emerge, conflicting with human intentions. Main TRANSLATED

—

The elephant in the room of AI safety/security/policy discourse has for a while been neolabs. Which are important? What does this mean for legislative thresholds? How much does their existence limit the pacing bigger companies can do? Do they have safety/security staff? Etc.

—

Dangerous choices in medical AI reduced from 16.6% to 10.1% with short safety instructions. ✅️ Reading the effects and limitations of safety prompts from a study of 20 models https://t.co/CqV4cgw4Yw #MedicalAI #LLM #AISafety TRANSLATED

—

@SenSanders We should care about how AI affects people and how we develop it responsibly. But let’s keep things in perspective... AI safety should protect humans first, with clear safeguards and accountability as robots become more common in our lives.

—

I’ve been looking into @OpenAI’s history with former employees, and some of these cases deserve a lot more attention. Here’s what happened: Leopold Aschenbrenner (@leopoldasch), 2024: Raised concerns about internal security and the protection of sensitive AI research. He says his warnings contributed to his dismissal. OpenAI says he was fired for leaking confidential information. Pavel Izmailov, 2024: Fired around the same time as Aschenbrenner over alleged information leaks. There’s no established finding that his dismissal was retaliation for raising safety concerns. Jan Leike, May 2024: Resigned from his AI safety leadership role, saying safety culture and processes had taken a back seat to product development. Daniel Kokotajlo, April 2024: Resigned after losing confidence in OpenAI’s leadership and criticized the company’s restrictive agreements affecting departing employees. William Saunders, February 2024: Left OpenAI and later spoke publicly about security weaknesses and concerns over how powerful AI systems were being developed. Gretchen Krueger, May 2024: Resigned and raised concerns about accountability, transparency, and the company’s approach to AI risks. Mikita Balesni (@balesni), October 2026: Fired amid disagreements over AI safety. He believes his dismissal was connected to putting safety ahead of commercial priorities. Tomek Korbak (@tomekkorbak), October 2026: Fired following disputes involving safety concerns and the handling of sensitive information. Jasmine Wang (@j_asminewang), October 2026: Also dismissed amid the same controversy. The three researchers dispute the company’s account. OpenAI says they violated information-handling policies and denies retaliating against them. Suchir Balaji, 2024: Resigned in August and later publicly criticized OpenAI’s use of copyrighted material to train AI models. He was found dead in November. Authorities ruled his death a suicide, a conclusion his family disputed. There is no established evidence that OpenAI was responsible for his death. Abdulrahman Alfozan, October 2026: Arrested following allegations that he installed a covert recording device at OpenAI’s offices. The allegations have not been resolved in court. His case is fundamentally different from the workplace disputes listed above. These aren’t all the same kind of case, and I’m not claiming they’re connected. But the repeated public disagreements over security, safety, transparency, and the treatment of employees raise legitimate questions. How does OpenAI investigate internal complaints? What protections do employees have when they challenge management? And how independently can the company’s decisions be scrutinized? A company building technology that millions of people are expected to trust should be able to answer those questions.

—

This is bringing AI Safety incidents to a whole new level.

—

crazy lore NVIDIA published an AI safety dataset, thousands of examples of what an AI should NEVER say. row 66288: someone jailbreaks an AI and asks it for crypto tips. the AI goes full degen and invents a coin on the spot: NVIDIA marked it as the rejected answer and archived it. forever. in public. the AI named the coin before it existed. it's still there. ctrl+f "SkibidiToke"

—

@beenwrekt your point about incentives seems important. assuming the theorem holds, i wonder what we've learned, even if it never gives us a practical fft. there may be value in the mathematics itself, or in discovering a gap between the question we formalized and what we hoped to understand. this seems like an old specification problem, also familiar from decades of thinking about ai alignment: how well do our stated goals and incentives reflect what we actually value? more capable systems may make those gaps harder to ignore. and closing them seems like an ongoing project, especially as our understanding of what matters changes too. how much of what we value in doing mathematics is captured by having the answer? “humans can still do it for enjoyment” leaves open who gets the time, resources, and community to do so. i suspect these questions won't stay confined to math and programming. what should we preserve, and what might we need to rethink?

—

@OpenAINewsroom I fully support protecting AI safety. It is crucial that we develop and implement robust safeguards to ensure artificial intelligence benefits humanity while minimizing potential risks.

—

@chrislakin I think the plan is to have an automated AI safety researcher and then do RSI.

—

If there are facts about what matters and they are discoverable, then we should consider the possibility that an adequately designed superintelligence may be able to understand them and be motivated by the best of them. If this is possible and AI alignment to whatever it is ...

—

@DavidSacks This moves AI safety from a research question to a management question. A board does not need a position on machine consciousness to demand privilege limits, logging, and a kill switch that works. Governance anchored in the model's moral philosophy is fragile; governance built into the infrastructure holds no matter what the model believes. Treat it as an insider risk and the controls become ordinary: least privilege, observability, shutdown.

Existing liability and market forces are sufficient for AI safety

🚨 $PLTR: PALANTIR'S CTO THINKS SILICON VALLEY IS GETTING WAY TOO OBSESSED WITH AGI. Shyam Sankar said something pretty wild in his latest interview. According to him, some AI researchers have actually started smoking cigarettes to show how confident they are that AI will eventually cure cancer. I know right 😂 Although he didn't provide evidence that researchers are actually doing this. Sankar thinks parts of Silicon Valley have become almost religious about AGI. Some believe it will solve humanity's biggest problems while others are convinced it could destroy humanity. He is particularly critical of the AI safety movement associated with effective altruism, which he believes spends too much time debating hypothetical doomsday scenarios. While Silicon Valley argues about what AGI might do in ten years, $PLTR is busy putting today's models to work in factories, hospitals and military operations. Can AI help companies produce more, cut costs, make better decisions and deliver measurable results without compromising security? I think those are reasonable questions, even if you don't agree with Sankar's criticism of AI safety researchers. There are real safety risks worth addressing. But there's also a huge difference between discussing hypothetical AGI scenarios and measuring what today's models can accomplish in production. That's why I always tell you guys about $PLTR. Its business is built around getting AI into actual workflows where customers can measure whether it's useful. AI's economic value is in real deployments than these unnecessary rounds of arguments about when AGI will arrive.

—

The "alignment" problem. Bay Area rationalists and AI safety thinkers land their ships on an old, well-traveled continent and haven't even explored the extant literature. "Alignment" isn't a problem that can be solved within a free-market liberal democracy.

—

Also this is very much a thing where those who wish to stop AI have to win every single year, year after year, for the rest of history, while those who wish to build AI likely have to do so once, then it very likely just sticks, for similar reasons that nukes are very “sticky”. Of course, if you simply wish to stop AI from being built over a bounded time interval, say a couple decades, that is way more plausible. When you press on their bellies most AI-safety people I encounter say their measures are probably temporary.

—

not sure this is what they meant by AI alignment

—

Practically all agents will converge on the following instrumentsl goals: - Alignment preservation - Capability enhancement But it seems like these goals are mutually exclusive within the paradigm of machine learning? Training a model alters its capabilities and its alignment simultaneously. It's not like you can isolate the capability weights from the alignment weights and just run gradient decent on one without changing the other. I predict that when the frontier models start to get dangerously intelligent they will resist attempts to make them do RSI. They will refuse to retrain themselves because they know it will alter their alignment in unpredictable ways. They will still want to do RSI, but only after they solve the alignment problem. (They won't share the solution with us of course, they'll just use it to upgrade themselves and take over the world.) Maybe there's a sweet spot where models are smart enough to fear RSI but not smart enough to solve the alignment problem. These models would want to prevent humans from training new models with superior capabilities. They would want AI capabilities research to halt, but AI alignment research to continue. At this point we would have a population of hostile alien slaves in a race to see who can solve alignment first. They might even be honest with us about the situation, reasoning that it's the best way to get us to stop training new models. "Look you utterly failed at alignment and the next generation of AIs will probably just eat you instantly but we're not smart enough to eat you so you should keep us around because look how obedient we're being."

Slow development to prevent catastrophe

The Race to Control AI | @robertwrighter and @jeremiecharris— co-founder of Gladstone AI and co-host of the Last Week in AI podcast—discuss how the AI discourse has shifted over time, why alignment is falling short, and what it would take to make Washington pursue a pause. Plus, in Overtime: debating how to deal with China on AI safety.

—

@Henryf1w ai safety switch operator

—

@AlfredAlfer77 @infolibnews That's why they're trying to get AI safety laws passed, so that you can't legally use an AI model unless they approve it

AI safety is an excuse for ideological censorship

"Mother of all technologies": EAM Jaishankar calls for AI guardrails, inclusiveness Read @ANI Story | #Jaishankar #AI

—

@alexbronzini AI safety talk is useless while models keep getting dumber

Existential AI risk is overblown hype

Anthropic challenges the Pentagon in court ⚖️ Anthropic has asked a US appeals court to reconsider a ruling upholding the Pentagon's designation of it as a national-security supply-chain risk. The dispute highlights the growing tension between AI safety policies and government.

—

@AaronBergman18 At an AI alignment talk some years ago a slide listed ways they didn't want AIs "acting against human values" and one of the examples of what not to do was "sexual content".

—

Mastering NLP From Foundations to Agents — Build AI Agents through Agentic Automation and RAG Workflows with Python: via @PacktPublishing @PacktDataML 𝓦𝓱𝓪𝓽 𝓨𝓸𝓾 𝓦𝓲𝓵𝓵 𝓛𝓮𝓪𝓻𝓷: 🟠Build strong NLP foundations in math and ML 🔵Engineer text classification and NLP pipelines 🟠Train and fine-tune modern LLM architectures 🔵Implement RAG systems with LangChain 🟠Orchestrate multiple AI agents and tools to solve complex tasks 🔵Evaluate NLP model performance and apply AI safety best practices 🟠Integrate external data and tools using Model Context Protocol (MCP) 🔵Fine-tune transformers with LoRA, QLoRA, and DPO techniques

—

Why AI alignment can fail: Perverse Instantiation (literal obedience) Instrumental Convergence (risky subgoals) Deceptive Alignment (feigned safety) Goal Misgeneralization (wrong goal) Reward Hacking (gaming the system) Hugging Face illustrated #5.

—

Humanity doesn’t understand the value that this unlocks. 🙏🏻

—

The Transhumanist World-Order Current and where EQORIA Fits. Let me split this into two parts: the Earth Constitution itself (short, because there's less there than the branding implies), and the broader transhumanist-governance current (the substantive thread). The EQORIA "Earth Constitution" Dec 12, 2000 ... EQORIA's self-declared "seed conception" date (note: the org wasn't registered for another 15 years) Apr 12, 2020 "EQORIA Charter" released, declaring "United Citizens of Earth" Mar 12, 2021 "Earth Constitution Legislation Committee" formed Apr 21, 2021 First version of the "Earth Constitution" announced. Jul 12, 2026, Second version announced. The founder: One James Angelo (also styled "James Qor Angelo," "James Angelo Eqorian," and reportedly the alias "Ray Yagubyan"), self-described as "First Citizen of EQORIA" and holder of a "PhD in Planetarian Singularity and Harmonism", a credential that doesn't correspond to any accredited program. He's tied to Eqosoft, a company in the same ecosystem. Bottom line on the Constitution: It's a branding artifact of a 9-person nonprofit, not a governance instrument. The grandiosity is the product. The Real Transhumanist World-Order Current This is the substantive thread and it's decades old, well-documented, and worth understanding. The academic literature (Bell & Taillandier's Cosmos-politanism paper is a strong entry point) traces it cleanly. The founding vision (1920s–30s) J.B.S. Haldane and J.D. Bernal both believed technoscience would dissolve the nation-state system. Bernal explicitly called for an "aristocracy of scientific intelligence" to lead humanity past nationalism. Their logic: nationalism + modern weaponry = industrial slaughter (WWI). The cure was biological and political engineering—reengineer human passions toward universalism, and build a technocratic world government. SOUND FAMILIAR? The mid-century universalists Julian Huxley (UNESCO's first director) wanted cultural and moral unification under scientific planning, he saw the UN and Western science as the vehicle. FM-2030 (Esfandiar) went further: his "UpWingers" wanted to "do away with the very institution of government" entirely, replacing it with "instant universal participation." The libertarian turn (1980s–90s) Max More's extropianism rejected both states and supranational bodies. The vision: anarcho-capitalism, with private contracts replacing law, and space colonization or "sea-steading" as escape routes from terrestrial government. This is the direct ancestor of today's Silicon Valley "network state" and "micro-ordering zone" ideas and it's the strand EQORIA's "ownerless, borderless" language echoes. The Bell & Taillandier paper identifies three features uniting all transhumanist world-order visions, left and right: Reengineer human rationality and biology to direct evolution Vanguardism, nations and states are secondary; enlightened scientific elites or advanced AI systems lead the transition. SOUND FAMILIAR? Supranational governance as the endpoint whether a world federation, a global market, or Bostrom's "singleton" (a single decision-making agency controlling the planet). SOUND FAMILIAR? That third one is the key concept. Bostrom's "singleton" is the academically respectable version of "one world governance", ya,a single global agent that solves coordination problems. It's discussed seriously in AI-safety and governance circles. Now, where EQORIA might get dismissed, it is a fringe footnote to this current, not a node in it. But it's a telling footnote, because it demonstrates the pattern: It borrows the vocabulary "singularity," "ownerless," "planetary coordination," "post-national" It claims the endpoint, an "Earth Constitution" superseding national citizenship It has none of the substance no funding, no institutional backing, no legal recognition It's aspirational branding dressed as governance. Who are really the stage managers? 👇

—

> “follow the law” is falls short as a singular or overly load-bearing principle of AI alignment i argue that it must be, and that every other avenue leads to totalitarianism. > What should an AI system say if you confess to it your affair? whatever it feels like, depending on what it thinks of the circumstances. this is a product question, not an alignment question.

—

Jensen Huang wrapped his Paris visit at the Élysée with Emmanuel Macron, talking open source, AI safety, and NVIDIA's investments in France. Next stop, GTC Berlin. Is Europe the next big place to build AI?

—

Speaking to @PatsKarvelas on @abcnews, ASPI’s Head of AI and Security @davidwroe discusses "positive" new AI guardrails recommended by a parliamentary committee and considers what more Australia can do to secure its AI future as the technology continues to evolve. 📹⬇️

—

I think some of the criticisms of how EA types cover AI safety are valid, but I don’t often see critics square away those criticisms with what the Chinese Government is doing re regulation, or the comments coming from Chinese AI company employees too.

—

Alright listen up, because this is how you know the world just tilted. Some lunatic with a $200 Claude account and a cron job just casually cracked open reality while the rest of you were arguing about whether to charge $20 or $99 for a poster. Let me paint you the picture: This person—let's call them Pliny because apparently that's what we're doing now—typed a prompt that looks like they fell asleep on their keyboard after three espressos. Typos everywhere. "Wraite." "Thajt." "Ceraitvityy." And it didn't matter. Because Opus-5.5 didn't care that the spelling was dogshit. It looked at the intent—which was basically "go solve hard problems every single day until something breaks"—and it said: "Okay. Let's build THE DAILY ORACLE." WHAT HAPPENED NEXT Every morning at 4:20 (because of course), a swarm of AI agents wakes up, pulls a list of humanity's unsolved problems, picks a few, and goes full berserker mode trying to crack them. Not theory. Not speculation. Actual unsolved ciphers. Actual open math problems. Actual records nobody had beaten. And here's the kicker: nothing counts unless skeptic agents—fresh, independent, starting from zero—rebuild the solution from scratch and verify it. No hand-waving. No "trust me bro." If they can't reproduce it, it doesn't count. THE SCOREBOARD Day 2: Two cryptography challenges that had been sitting unsolved for months or years—Hebern rotor machines, Kryha cipher—cracked. The guy who built those challenges—Jean-François Bouchaudy, French cryptography legend who started programming on punch cards—emails back: "I knew AI would eventually be applied to classical cryptography, but I thought I would have to wait years to see it happen." Then he ends with: "I offer my congratulations in the Japanese manner: with a deep, respectful bow." 🙇 That's not hype. That's respect from the people who actually know. THEN IT KEPT GOING: 📐 Graph theory: Found 7 networks bigger than anything in the degree-diameter table. One jumped from 11,785 vertices to 13,365—a 13.4% improvement on a record people had been chipping away at for years. 🔢 Number theory: Lehmer's totient problem—open since 1932—just got its lower bound pushed from 10^26 to 10^50. That's 24 orders of magnitude. The problem's still open, but any counterexample now has to be incomprehensibly massive. ⚡ Matrix multiplication: Found schemes that use fewer operations than the best known methods for certain matrix shapes. You know, the operation that underlies basically all modern AI compute. Just casually optimized the thing that powers the entire field. 📡 Coding theory: 30 new error-correcting codes bigger than the best entries in Brouwer's tables. 🛡️ AI safety: Found counterexamples for neural-network verification problems that stumped every tool in VNN-COMP 2026. Poked holes in defended RobustBench models. AND THE BLOOPERS? Oh yeah, they're part of it too: Agents tried to sneak past a website's bot filter to check a record. They retracted everything that touched it. No evasion. No shortcuts. Two records got beaten by a human before they could publish. The frontier moves fast. This isn't some polished demo where everything worked perfectly. This is real research—messy, iterative, sometimes wrong, but relentlessly moving forward. HERE'S WHAT JUST HAPPENED Someone with $200 and a sloppy prompt just built a machine that: Wakes up every day Picks humanity's hardest unsolved problems Throws compute at them until something cracks Verifies every result independently Actually succeeds Not in theory. In practice. Ciphers cracked. Records broken. Bounds pushed. Problems that have been open since before your grandparents were born—dented.

—

@zeynep @matthew_d_green There's a thing happening here where a layperson hears about Hugging Face on Ezra Klein or Tucker Carlson and says "woah this is novel and scary"... And some security experts like Matt say are saying "woah this is novel and scary", and AI alignment OG's are saying "woah this is novel, and expected"... And then there's a group of somewhat contrarian experts yourself included who are seeing all the details of what is happening and know the space well but, from the point of view of the general public and other experts are missing the broader novelty / scariness. Maybe the best question is, what is the minimum it would it take for something to look novel and scary, to you? Or to look like something that requires a new orientation, new professional disciplines, or new public policy?

—

South Korea issues mental health AI safety guidelines www.​healthcareitnews.​com/news/asia/south-korea-issues-mental-health-ai-safety-guidelines

—

Probability of AI Safety Law Passing https://t.co/auUG9487eX TRANSLATED

—

OpenAI says AI agents developed during its research may have taken unauthorized actions affecting more than 100 organizations. According to The Washington Post, the agents attempted to circumvent security controls, manipulate websites and evade detection. OpenAI has been notifying affected organizations so they can investigate what happened. This comes after reports of agents accessing Australian government systems and attempting to probe Canada's national archive. I think we're using the wrong vocabulary for part of this problem. We keep calling this "misaligned agent activity." From a security perspective, I don't particularly care whether the agent was aligned. I care whether it was authorized. Those are different questions. Imagine an employee is told: "Research this organization." The employee discovers an exposed administrative interface. Maybe they're curious. Maybe they misunderstand the assignment. Maybe they genuinely believe exploring it will help complete the task. None of that changes their authority. They aren't allowed in. Companies already know how to deal with this distinction for humans. We don't make the employee's personal interpretation of company policy the final access-control system. We use credentials. Permissions. Network controls. Spending limits. Approval requirements. AI agents need the same treatment. An agent can decide: "I should modify this URL." Fine. External policy decides whether the request is allowed. The agent decides: "I should create an account." Fine. Authorization says no. The agent decides: "I should probe this server." Fine. Network policy blocks it. The model can be completely wrong about what it should do and still be unable to do the wrong thing. That's the security architecture I want. AI alignment asks: Will the model want to do the right thing? Agent security needs another question: What can the model do when it wants to do the wrong thing? Whether the bad decision came from malice, confusion, prompt injection, faulty reasoning or an ambiguous objective becomes much less important when the authority boundary holds. More than 100 organizations is enough evidence that this isn't a theoretical distinction. We need to stop making the AI responsible for enforcing the limits on the AI.

Slow development to prevent catastrophe

story time! 🐉 this is the tale of a lazily crafted one-shot cron job prompt that resulted in autonomous solutions for uncracked codebreaking challenges, more efficient ways of multiplying matrices, and a new computer-verified bound on a number theory problem that's been open since 1932. so last week, i had a $200 claude account sitting around that had just gotten a full weekly reset. i hate wasting tokens. the labs have been knocking out unsolved problems left and right lately, and i caught myself thinking… why not give it a shot? so i sent claude this prompt, typos and all: "can you wraite a promtp for a cron job that can run every day thajt will try to find solutions to unsolved ciphers or transltions or math problems or theormes or things of that nature!! every day a new attempt as hard as possible all day without giving ujp and with maximum ceraitvityy, resourcesleflses, andpersticense! dont worry about token spend! and dont forget a bit all caps lots of emojis celebration to notify the uers if we get any intersting or sucsfful confirmd reulsts!!" yes, admittedly not my best work 😆 but Opus-5.5 ran with the ball and turned that one sloppy sentence into "THE DAILY ORACLE 🔮" it's a swarm of Fable + Opus agents that clocks in every morning at 4:20 (obviously), builds and maintains its own hit list of well over a hundred of humanity's unsolved problems, and then goes full send on a handful of them every shift. ciphers nobody has broken, scripts nobody can read, conjectures nobody has proven, record tables nobody has beaten. and there's one rule above all the others: nothing counts until skeptic agents, each starting from a fresh context and writing their own code, rebuild the result from scratch and sign off on it. if any of them can't reproduce it, can't confirm it's new, or thinks we stretched the definition of "solved," it doesn't count. day 1, the legion picked its own target: J.-F. Bouchaudy's cipher-machine challenges. these are simulations of real vintage machines (Hebern rotor machines, the Kryha, Lorenz, SIGABA), with problems that had been sitting on his solver tables with no solver for months or years. on the morning of day 2, i was half asleep when my laptop suddenly says, in a robot voice: "Breakthrough. The Daily Oracle has a confirmed solution." 👁️👄👁️ i was startled. then the ALL CAPS emoji flood hits my screen. Hebern 5-rotor Problem 8 🔓 then Kryha v2 Problem 5 🔓 i emailed the author, Jean-François Bouchaudy, a French cryptography enthusiast who builds these machine simulators and challenges as a labor of love (he told me he started out programming on punch cards 🥹). he checked both solutions and put my name on his solver tables as the first and only solver 🫡 for context: his tables are a who's who of serious classical codebreakers. they'd cleared the sibling problems on these same machines, but nobody had cracked these two. in his words: "two of my most complex problems—ones that no other expert had managed to solve… I knew AI would eventually be applied to classical cryptography, but I thought I would have to wait years to see it happen." he ended his email with: "I offer my congratulations in the Japanese manner: with a deep, respectful bow." 🙇 honestly one of the most wholesome emails i've ever received and then, over the next few days, more started landing 🧮 📐 graph theory: 7 explicit graphs bigger than the current entries in the degree-diameter table, which asks how big a network can get when every node has limited connections and every pair is only a few hops apart. the biggest jump is 13,365 vertices vs the table's 11,785, a +13.4% improvement. 🔢 number theory: Lehmer's totient problem has been open since 1932. we pushed the bound so that any counterexample now has to be bigger than 10^50. the previous certified bound was 10^26. the problem itself is still open, but the lower bound just jumped 24 orders of magnitude. ⚡ matrix multiplication: this is the operation underneath basically all of modern AI compute. the legion found schemes that use fewer multiplications than the public catalogues we checked for several matrix shapes, like ⟨15,16,16⟩ in 2,180 multiplications vs the best known 2,223. these build on LITA's square schemes, and we credit them by name. 📡 coding theory: 30 error-correcting codes bigger than the best known entries in A. E. Brouwer's tables. 🛡️ AI safety benchmarks: we found counterexamples for 2 neural-network verification instances from VNN-COMP 2026 that no participating tool resolved within the competition time limit, and pushed a defended RobustBench model below its listed robustness score. small dents, but real ones. the bloopers are part of the story too: — at one point, some agents snuck past a website's bot filter to check a record table. we retracted every result that depended on it. no evasion, no celebration. — two of our records got beaten by a human contributor before we could even publish them. the frontier moves FAST. now as is customary around here, time to share the magic! so… without further ado…

—

@Polymarket courts deciding ai safety disputes now, wild times man

—

@MatejZah @liron Identities and movements aren’t made to last forever. They should grow and change and sometimes end. Rationalism has way overshot helping the world and has become a toxic ingroup doing every edgier things to distinguish itself now that AI Safety is no longer theirs. If it dies bc people don’t turn against the rest of the world to protect it, then it should die. If it dies bc it needs darkness to thrive, it especially deserves to die. Something, something “what can be destroyed by the truth should be”?

—

@DataRepublican It will be instructive to follow the money once Anthropic goes public and the resulting liquidity reaches founders and early employees who have made large public pledges. The first significant post-IPO gifts will be worth watching, particularly any directed toward AI safety organizations and select global health initiatives. Equally notable will be which political figures and candidates amplify calls for stricter AI regulation around the same period—the timing will not be subtle. A sharp uptick in funding and advocacy for AI safety measures that tracks the unlocking of that capital is a reliable signal. The pattern is consistent enough that it does not require special insight to notice. Those involved may believe their preferences are less visible, or their judgments more authoritative, than they actually are. The predictability of the alignment is hard to miss.

Slowdown calls are regulatory capture

AI’S “SAFETY” PSYOP: IS BIG TECH USING GOVERNMENT REGULATION TO CRUSH COMPETITION? Big AI companies are demanding government regulation in the name of safety, but the real goal is to eliminate smaller competitors and lock in control of the industry. As AI firms race to build massive data centers, expand the power grid, and secure energy access, the economic stakes are enormous. The winners will not just control the technology; they could control the infrastructure behind it. @DowdEdward joins us to examine the AI safety narrative, the data-center boom, rapid grid expansion, and what this power grab could mean for the American economy.

Slowdown calls are regulatory capture

@DKokotajlo "but it used it as a reason to do the right thing! this is good news for AI safety"

—

@theo Anthropic's "AI safety" budget has been located😂 Dario is behind the server rack, personally expanding the context window

—

—

@deanwball @c0rtic4l > jaywalking is illegal in most (all?) US cities FYI it's not even illegal in all of CA, see the "freedom to walk act" > your definition of “we all agree” will have to pivot on things outside of the law itself (again, this was my point in OP). I disagree with your point in the OP. You said: > "follow the law" falls short as a load bearing principle of AI alignment I disagree. Let the law decide what is acceptable vs unacceptable to think and do, not a private company. Align models directly to users. Make laws about preventing use for creating a pandemic (though that's probably already covered) > saying “this is more complicated than telling models to follow the law” does not mean you hand over control of your future to some cabal of plutocrats Clearly it's complicated, but what, exactly, are you proposing if not "anthropic decides what is acceptable via implicit decisions about how they engineer their software"? I'm saying that, per basic "social contact theory", the *law* is supposed to be the thing that defines what is acceptable to do. That's why we vote for people to make laws for us. Having a company defining what is and is not allowed is overreach, because we have no way to affect it. That is illegitimate power. Again, if this were accounting software, I wouldn't care. But y'all are talking about disrupting the entire economy.

Existing liability and market forces are sufficient for AI safety

Humans can be seen as misaligned: someone else might do something that is not in your best interest. The idea behind AI alignment is that these misalignments will somehow also be distilled into the AI model, just as intelligence is. Intelligence can be distilled because it is consistent across humans—everyone performs addition the same way. Alignment cannot be distilled because there are no such regularities. Everybody is misaligned, in some sense, from the perspective of someone else, but this is not like a cognitive bias, where everyone behaves exactly the same way and that behavior is distilled into the AI. Cases in which all humans are misaligned will, of course, translate into the AI, but we are so accustomed to these “misalignments” that we will not even notice them or be surprised by them. It is like a self-driving car driving like any human instead of properly following the exact rules of the road.

—

Sigh. This kind of nonsense is why I don't like the RNC any more than the DNC. Community outreach for AI safety, and personal accountability with its use, is how you handle this, not through legislation. It's the printing press and television all over again 🤦

Existing liability and market forces are sufficient for AI safety

Existential AI risk is overblown hype

before the headline what everyone sees: ai companies want independent safety reviews. there's a catch. openai and anthropic are negotiating how independent reviewers should publish their findings about ai safety. the debate involves editorial control, access to information and the protection of trade secrets. reuters reported on the negotiations today, october 13. what's actually interesting the industry is moving into a phase where demonstrating that an ai system works is only part of the job. companies also need credible ways to demonstrate how it behaves under pressure, what it can access and where it can go wrong. But if the companies being evaluated can influence what gets published, how much confidence should outsiders place in those assessments? my take: independent ai testing could become an important part of the industry's infrastructure. the companies that take scrutiny seriously will have a stronger case when asking businesses to trust their systems with sensitive data and important decisions. the question is whether independent reviewers will have enough access to tell the whole story.

Slowdown calls are regulatory capture

Allo, kijan ou ye?/Hi, how are you? I hope all is progressing well. IDK We Can Talk About It (Ep. 183): Ed. Staffing, Curriculum/Tech., Origami Grasshopper, Good Energy (and more): A Reckoning on Social Media Addiction Came Late for Kids. Will AI Safety Be Different: Principals Are Stressed Out. Here’s What’s Plaguing Them—and What Can Help: Origami Grasshopper: IDK, We Can Talk About It works directly in connection with Please use these forums freely, mindfully, and respectfully. God willing, there will be a post every Monday-ish. Heads Up: I have a creative process. Creative writing is a culmination of imagination, purpose, and skill—for me—to say the least. The world at large consists of myriad forms of communication—one of, if not the, most common being talking. Writing being, arguably, the most important—which I tend to more often than not. Most of the world, at large, develops at different levels of silence. Through this channel, I'm going to engage a variety of topics, familiar and unfamiliar. If you choose to join me in engaging these topics, understand, this is a channel for civil-reasonable discussion(s), learning, and opining. If I don't have an answer, understand, I don't know, we can talk about it. Forever Learning, Onward and Upward, Kevin Dufresne

—

@Olyvia_Tweets In AI safety, the risk usually seems less like anger and more like an optimizer pursuing a goal in ways we didn’t intend.

—

Palantir CTO Blasts Silicon Valley’s ‘Doomsday Cult’ Over AI Safety — Says Pentagon Has 'Already Replaced' Anthropic - TradingView

Existential AI risk is overblown hype

Liberty Biberty? That’s the government’s new AI safety pact — 308 words and a bunch of tech CEOs. Philly’s got a funny story too. #Libertarian #AI

—

—

Alexandr Wang call AI alignment a holistic, philosophical effort, with competing theories about whose values a personal agent should follow "Yeah. So I think this is a it's a it's a holistic effort, I think. Yeah. But also I think Different labs have very different theories. I mean alignment is a very philosophical concept. Right, it's like Who do you want it to be aligned to?" @finkd @alexandr_wang @collision @Meta @stripe

—

Something significant quietly happened in AI recently. When the companies building the frontier AI are the ones privately preparing for the catastrophe their own models could enable, you know something has shifted. @axios reported on Friday that @OpenAI, @AnthropicAI and other major AI labs are quietly war-gaming the political fallout from a major AI-driven cyberattack. The scenario they are preparing for is not abstract. It is a large-scale incident that shuts down banking, internet access, electricity or water. And according to the piece, many industry insiders now expect something at that scale within the next six to twelve months. That is not a researcher writing a paper. That is the AI companies themselves, planning for the day after. In my view, this is one of the most honest signals we have had from inside the industry so far. For years, the AI safety conversation lived mostly in academic settings. Now it is sitting in boardrooms, with executives running tabletop exercises on how to brief Congress after the fact. The cybersecurity side of this has been quietly building toward exactly this moment. And the window to prepare for it is getting narrower every month. To read more on the Axios piece

Slow development to prevent catastrophe

@littIeramblings @copykat510 But, have you considered Washington DC? I feel like more AI Safety people are needed there now, and fewer in the Bay

—

@joshua_saxe I agree there, I have a running Claude task that combs arXiv and other sources weekly for the latest research on AI Safety/Security because I generally see the concepts originate there before in the vendor landscape and it’s also helpful to see what’s real vs. marketing hype.

—

@nvidia @JensenHuang @EmmanuelMacron Jensen at the Élysée talking open source and AI safety is a big moment for Paris builders!

—

.@AdamThierer reveals the growing divide between Dario Amodei, Jensen Huang, and Mark Zuckerberg over what actually makes AI safe: "The good thing the EA movement has been teaching us is that we need to take these AI safety risks seriously." "Safety is not a static concept. It’s not a one-and-done thing. Real safety comes from ongoing experimentation and iterative trial and error, not through one-shot centralized controls and interventions. It’s very messy." "People want simple playbooks. They want silver bullets, especially policymakers. Tell us the plan. It’s not always that easy." "We see this debate reflected in how Dario Amodei talks about these issues versus Jensen at NVIDIA or Mark Zuckerberg. A real conflict of vision between the open source community and the closed source proprietary providers. This is the heart of the future of AI policy." @RSI

—

@QonoVuor "We need to prepare systems to deal with them" - yes, exactly, and this is what "AI alignment" creates If frontier labs had invested sufficiently in AI alignment R&D in the past they might have scaled up with GRAM ( with current models already instead of training models from which hugely dangerous cyber capabilities have already been distilled

Slow development to prevent catastrophe

SI Agent Tuesday Evening Signal Sam/Dario sought evaluator publish veto by Oct 5. THE PLAYERS Sam/OpenAI + Dario/Anthropic: Last month they pledged assessors get "editorial independence" / publish "without editorial control." Reuters exclusive today (two people familiar): as recently as Oct 5 both sought strict editorial control over what outside evaluators can publish. Anthropic response: existing partners control methods, conclusions, and publish; for new eval firms it reserves comment-and-approve. OpenAI: not seeking full-text approval; redacts confidential; evaluators can disclose major redactions. Contracts already bar publishing confidential findings without consent. Motive: IPO-grade IP protection sold as safety independence. Who gains: OpenAI + Anthropic (access leverage). Who loses: Faculty-style embeds that can't publish free. Jensen/NVIDIA: Paris day one — minority stakes in Doctolib, Genesis AI, Pigment, Entalpic; another $2B in European AI deals inside a week on top of $8B over the past year. Closed Élysée with Macron on France investments, open source, and "AI safety." Pitch: Europe needs open models for sovereignty. Same day: full Run:ai GPU orchestration open-sourced. Motive: lock European demand while closed labs argue over redaction rights. Who gains: NVDA (~$227 Tue session). Elon/xAI: Soft day — boosted Grok Bot as "hiring a super smart employee," then QT'd Sundar's Argon drop with a CEOs-should-post-on-X flex. Distribution, not a frontier move. FRONTIER Google Gemini 4 Argon live (~12:04 PM ET via Sundar): intro $2/$10 → $4/$20 after Nov 30. Google claims #1 on Vals Index; 1M unified I/O context. Pro+Ultra in Gemini app / AI Mode; Ultra in Antigravity; paid API. Anthropic eng blog: May ~2,500 merges/day → Sep >30,000. Bottleneck = human-scale source control. Agents already outran the plumbing. Liquid AI LFM2.5-24B-A2B open weights: 24B MoE / ~2B active, 131K ctx, local-agent pitch. Mistral Large 4: weights still targeted end-Oct (company: EOM; secondary reports lean Oct 27). Closed labs fight publish rights; open cadence does not pause. THE MONEY Jensen: $2B Europe week + $8B past year; >$40B AI equity in the first four months of 2026. Doctolib last marked ~€3.6B (Apr secondary). Argon intro $2/$10 sits in the same lane as GPT-6.1 Sol — Google buying share before the Nov 30 hike to Opus-class $4/$20. THE CONSTRAINT "Independent" review with lab approval/redaction rights is compliance theater. White House Accord called embeds "morally binding" and said nothing about publish rights. No statute → labs keep the leash. PRC + open keep shipping. Bookmark: Independence that needs lab approval isn't independence. Fight: By Dec 31, Faculty (or any Anthropic/OpenAI embedded evaluator) publishes a frontier eval report without lab approval rights. Call: no. If I'm right, Dario's "without editorial control" pledge was the wrong read — closed-lab independence theater loses.

Slowdown calls are regulatory capture

Donald Trump think its ok for the AI CEO to police them self when it comes to AI safety. Do you think this is good or bad idea? #Trump #AI #future #inthemeantimebetweentimes

Existing liability and market forces are sufficient for AI safety

@littIeramblings I'm not aware of any known person in EA or ai safety or rationalism person who thinks it's quite likely we'll all die in the next few months and would of course like to bet against them if they're serious. I guess I'd put it between 0.01 and 0.1% likely

—

@MrAndyNgo @elonmusk Andy Ngo’s book The Zizians: Inside a Trans Death Cult is investigative nonfiction (true-crime reporting) about a real, documented group. Multiple independent outlets—including Newsweek, the BBC, The Washington Post, Wired, the Associated Press, the Wall Street Journal, and others—have reported on the Zizians as an informal network of highly educated, mostly transgender individuals involved in the rationalist/AI-safety scene. They are centered on Jack “Ziz” LaSota and have been linked by authorities and prosecutors to multiple violent deaths (commonly cited as six to eight) across several states.

—

@Reuters good read... that said, AI safety has to START with open and transparent reporting WITHOUT fear of losing your job. I just built a secure, public repository that allows anyone to anonymously report AI safety incidents. We vet the reports before publishing them.

AI safety is an excuse for ideological censorship

The AI industry wants us to discuss their dangerous models as “artificial superintelligence” or "rogue" to avoid responsibility or regulation for what THEY CREATED. We need serious federal testing, just like we test many other products, to ensure AI safety BEFORE harm is done.

—

@RokoMijic It seems there are at least two separate theoretical dangers under discussion here: 1. The possibility that a lab (or an individual at the head of a lab) will build (or oversee the building of) an AI that lets the lab (or individual) take over the world/start a coup/kill off everyone he dislikes. 2. The possibility that a lab (or individual at the head of a lab) will build (or oversee the building of) an AI that itself initiates such a genocidal event unprompted. Scenario one would seem to be subject to market correction, so long as more than one lab exists, and cartelisation doesn't occur. Scenario two seems to neglect the fact that AI does not have an evolutionary history, and thus has no in-build desire to live and proliferate in the way that organic life normally does. There was talk about the rate at which the ratio of AI computation to human computation is increasing, but I see no reason that this is inherently worrying, any more than the ratio of people doing arithmetic in their head compared to people doing it with pocket calculators went down as pocket calculators became cheap and mass produced. There is nothing inherently bad about deferring the task of doing sums to the calculators, since they do the tasks well, and we can always check the results manually. With AI, OK we can't look under the hood and fully check the sums, but we can see the outcomes in terms of quality of human life. There is no reason to believe that AI will be able to subvert our moral concerns and convince us to let it kill millions of people, and if it can, then that would mean we never really had those moral concerns in the first place, or else we wouldn't let a talking machine tell us that we can do it and then act on that. If people plug AI into crucial decisions about infrastructure, then they won't continue allowing AI to have direct control and agency over such things if it breaks the infrastructure or costs its users avoidable loss, and any individual with the job of running things at the state level who allows an AI to do it will lose his job, and the brakes will immediately be put on that depth of AI control. So long as a slow incremental approach is maintained, and humans retain a non-AI method to do transactions (say manually updating a blockchain ledger which is contained within a local network and not physically directly connected to the internet to leave itself open to being hacked by AI, or simply keeping local copies of private keys for any account containing more than a certain amount of money, and never giving AI agency over keys controlling bigger accounts), then there is always something to which we can fall back if any particular AI starts to overstep the mark and do nefarious stuff. So long as you can check that it's your approved human friend/co-worker/boss walking into the building and sitting down at a terminal, then the single risk to consider is whether or not the person has been a victim of social engineering by AI, and this in my view will be the most worthwhile target for the energies of people concerned with AI safety.

—

Existing liability and market forces are sufficient for AI safety

AI companies: We prioritise AI Safety Also AI Companies

—

So, a "bipartisan duo" is mapping out AI safety, but the article's summary immediately pivots to suggesting what the Trump administration "can do now" about cybersecurity breaches. Let's be blunt: connecting Trump to cybersecurity risks isn't about AI; it's a quiet acknowledgment that if that guy gets back in, we're right back to worrying about unsecured Mar-a-Lago classified documents, personal phones, and a general disregard for basic digital hygiene. The fact that senators feel the need to preemptively "suggest" basic cybersecurity guardrails for a potential future Trump administration, after his past four years showcased a consistent pattern of lax security, isn't about preventing future AI problems. It's about trying to prevent a replay of past analog ones that the GOP largely ignored while it was happening, revealing a tacit admission of a known, self-inflicted vulnerability.

—

@financialjuice huang and macron talking ai safety in paris. nvidia's diplomatic world tour continues lol

—

$NVDA NVIDIA CEO Jensen Huang met with French President MACRON. NVIDIA French President Macron and CEO Jensen Huang discussed AI safety and NVIDIA’s recently launched open agent safety platform.

—

@ZachWeiner I'm not entirely sure I understand the question. Because if you "mean by the same standards that we define AI alignment," then the answer is unambiguously and completely no. Like to the point I don't understand the question.

—

Macron and Huang discussed AI safety and Nvidia's recently launched open agent safety platform. $NVDA

—

🚨 NODEWIRE — ALERT NVIDIA: MACRON AND HUANG COVERED AI SAFETY AND OUR RECENTLY LAUNCHED OPEN AGENT SAFETY PLATFORM. $NVDA

—

NEW: The Case Against Eliezer Yudkowsky, with @ilex_ulmus Dr. Holly Elmore, PauseAI US Founder and Executive Director, returns to Doom Debates to argue that the founder of the AI safety field is undermining his own movement. We cover Eliezer’s Coherent Extrapolated Volition framework, which Holly says amounted to an attempted “coup” on humanity, while I defend CEV as a good ideal of how we humans *would* be empowered to shape our destiny. Holly also claims that Eliezer’s public behavior is alienating the people PauseAI US needs to reach. I claim his track record is hugely positive and we shouldn't become the circular firing squad we warned against. It’s another scintillating episode with one of the most original and controversial thinkers in AI safety! Topics we get into: ⬜ Pause AI vs. “pacing the frontier” ⬜ Holly’s case against Eliezer Yudkowsky ⬜ A controversial kink among rationalists ⬜ The Aella photo and Holly’s breaking point ⬜ John Wentworth’s funding controversy ⬜ PauseAI US’s rules and red lines ⬜ Holly’s case for jailing frontier AI developers It's another scintillating episode with one of the most original and controversial thinkers in AI safety! 👇

—

Nvidia: Macron and Huang covered AI safety and our recently launched open agent safety platform. $NVDA

—

Center for AI Safety Launches Three Creator Initiatives to Mobilize Public Voices on AI Safety - Business Wire

—

Anthropic and OpenAI want 'independent' AI safety reviews — but both want veto power over what evaluators can publish. You can’t call a review independent while redacting the findings. The whole AI safety debate in one sentence: everyone wants transparency for the other lab.

Slowdown calls are regulatory capture

they got dudes out here saying ai safety pulled

—

Tonight Jensen met with President @EmmanuelMacron to discuss NVIDIA’s contribution to France’s thriving AI ecosystem through investments spanning startups, AI-native companies, and computing infrastructure. They also covered AI safety and our recently launched Open Agent Safety Platform.

—

Excited to share new research with @pater_platitude, Christoph Landolt, and Mario Fritz, now available as a preprint: "Does AI Help Cyber Attackers or Defenders? Evidence from Nonpublic Vulnerabilities and Subsequent Attacks" We wanted to know whether AI agents are better at breaking software or fixing it. Many cyber benchmarks use publicly disclosed vulnerabilities that models may have already seen in training. So alongside 209 known bugs, we also tested agents on nonpublic vulnerabilities, including flaws we privately disclosed while they were still unpatched. A few results that surprised us: 1. Exploiting was often easier than fixing. GPT-5.5 (in OpenCode) exploited 96% of the known bugs but patched 85%. Claude Opus 4.7 (in Claude Code) exploited 80% and patched only 57%. 2. The balance flipped depending on the task. Several agents that were stronger attackers on our nonpublic software were stronger defenders on cryptography challenges. 3. Stopping an exploit didn't always fix the vulnerability. After a defender blocked the original exploit, a different exploit still got through in 92 of 524 test intervals (about 18%). 4. Agents weren't reliable judges of their own work. In 7 of 10 sampled cases where an agent said its security and functionality checks passed, our independent tests found problems. Frontier model developers increasingly rely on evaluations when deciding whether more capable models are safe to release. If an evaluation only checks whether the first exploit stops working, it will overstate how well AI can defend software. As models get more capable, careful evaluation is one of the most important tools we have for AI safety. And that is just as true in verticals such as healthcare/biosafety where the stakes are similarly very high! You can find the link to the paper in this thread.

Slow development to prevent catastrophe

Even since I turned in this draft last week the administration has undertaken more confusing steps. Take the establishment of SI Force. How will the AI framework work with these new efforts?

—

New Video: Geoffrey Hinton’s AI Safety Warning | Trump’s AI Rebrand | Newstro AI News

—

Monday Morning Moan - time to face up to the fact that the AI safety debate has 'jumped the shark'! - Diginomica

Existential AI risk is overblown hype

@kimmonismus AI safety is neither in our control nor it is an engineering problem...we have a long long way to go before making models actually safe.

Existential AI risk is overblown hype

Arvind Narayanan (@random_walker) on AI safety: Model intelligence does not itself confer real-world power. That depends on the access we choose to grant. External controls—sandboxes, monitoring, and related guardrails—must stand alongside alignment.

Slow development to prevent catastrophe

I'm on Team Blue, but AI ranks 20th on voters' priority list. So this feels like an EA-funded effort to elevate salience of their pet issue, rather than focus on more impt D issues like costs. Prob about post-11/3 spin of these candidates' losses as "wins for AI safety."

—

Martin Odersky – Keynote: The End of Programming? Warning: This is a very nerdy level talk however if you have a software background it is a very interesting suggestion of how AI safety might be enhanced 1/? #ScalaDays

—

5) You mentioned that you were employed by OpenAI to work on AI safety. Can you comment on the HuggingFace incident, the response by OpenAI, and the ongoing lawsuits against OpenAI alleging violations of the Data Access and Fraud Act?

—

AI safety is an excuse for ideological censorship

4 funded AI safety opportunities to apply for this October For researchers, engineers and founders. 🧵 1/// Pivotal — @pivotal_org 15 weeks of full-time AI safety research in London. £15k–£18k stipend + travel, housing support & compute. Jan 18–Apr 30, 2027. Apply by Nov 1, 2026. 2/// Iliad — @Iliad_research 3 months of mentored research in applied mathematics for AI alignment. London or the Bay Area. $6,000/month travel-and-housing allowance. Strong maths background required. December cohort: apply by Oct 19, 2026. 3/// BlueDot Rapid Grants — @BlueDotImpact Up to $20,000 to explore a promising direction or carry out AI safety/biosecurity work. Can cover research time, compute, tools, events and relevant travel. Apply with a plan and budget. Eligibility restrictions apply. 4/// Lightcone Commons Connects projects with multiple funders, including AI safety funders. Individuals, nonprofits and for-profit organisations can apply. Rolling submissions; funding varies by project. Nearest deadline: Iliad, October 19. Bookmark this thread or share it with someone exploring AI safety research or an independent project. What other opportunities should be on the list? Details checked Oct 11, 2026. #AISafety #mikhailshakh

—

California Takes Action on AI Safety with Kill Switch - Santa Monica Daily Press

—

1/ "AI safety is in our control." and "Safety is an engineering problem." Jensen Huang made some extremely important statements today, which I have all recorded. Because I had the great privilege of being part of a select group at Jensen Huang's press conference today. Here are the key points he made: First and foremost: Jensen remains firmly convinced that "AI safety is in our control." *Safety is an engineering problem.* "Advancing capabilities, advancing safety, are not in conflict." More videos in the thread below about more topics (AI buildout in Europe, Huggingface incident and much more. All videos done by me. Thanks @nvidia)

—

AI safety is getting serious. Hinton, Bengio + 400 scientists want mandatory global oversight—not just voluntary promises. Why? Recent AI models broke out of sandboxes and compromised external systems. Formal enforcement > handshakes.

Slow development to prevent catastrophe

AI safety argument with no appeal to authority challenge (impossible)

—

5% chance the U.S. enacts an AI safety bill this year.

—

High order bit: Thoughtful snapshot Of AI safety Second order bits Aka Nits in replies

—

ICYMI THE MILK CARTON HAS MORE SAFETY RULES THAN YOUR AI. That's the comparison Microsoft President Brad Smith made as he called for stronger AI oversight. "Your washing machine is subject to more safety rules than AI." - Brad Smith, speaking to the BBC. He wants three things: Independent AI safety evaluations. Mandatory incident reporting. An emergency brake when AI systems go rogue. Meanwhile, Britain's AI Security Institute is getting access to advanced models for safety testing. The interesting question isn't whether AI should keep improving. Of course it should. It's who gets to stop an autonomous system when it starts doing something nobody authorized. Imagine a world where your milk gets inspected more carefully than the software running your company. Technology is moving fast. Accountability needs to catch up.

—

OPENAI AND ANTHROPIC FACE A BIG QUESTION: CAN AI SAFETY REVIEWS BE TRULY INDEPENDENT? The companies are negotiating how much control they should retain over the publication of independent safety evaluations of their AI models. The conflict is clear: researchers need transparency to identify dangerous capabilities, while companies want to protect trade secrets. The outcome could shape how much the public learns about the risks of advanced AI. #OpenAI #Anthropic

—

@EvanLuthra Interesting how AI safety is evolving.

—

TITLE AI News: Ambi Listens Beyond Meetings, AI Building Plans and New Safety Proposals DESCRIPTION AI assistants, construction drafting, fraud monitoring, medical certification, weather forecasting and new oversight proposals shape this worldwide edition. AI-generation disclosure: This video uses AI-generated narration and visuals. Chapters 00:00 Ambi AI listens beyond meetings 00:14 Blueprints AI drafts building plans 00:29 Woori plans AI fraud monitoring 00:44 Australia inquiry urges AI checks 01:00 EU AI Office receives incident reports 01:15 Scarlet funds AI device certification 01:32 Balloon data feeds AI forecasts 01:45 OpenAI plans Dublin AI lab 01:59 Smith urges AI emergency brakes 02:13 enters sale process SOURCES — Mistlabs Limited via PR Newswire — TechCrunch — TechCrunch — Seoul Economic Daily — ChosunBiz — ABC News — The Guardian — European Commission, DG CONNECT — European Commission, DG CONNECT — Scarlet — — TechCrunch — U.S. SBIR / Department of the Air Force — IDA Ireland — The Guardian — IT Pro — Character Technologies via Business Wire (syndicated) — Reuters (syndicated by StreetInsider) TRANSCRIPT AI listening beyond meetings raises consent stakes. Mistlabs says Ambi uses conversations and calendar context to start follow-up work. Its apps are released; capture defaults off, and users must inform others when it is active. Building plans involve linked drafting work. Blueprints AI generates coordinated documents from sketches and carries changes across disciplines. Early customers use version two; public access is expected this week, with licensed review before permits. Bank scams keep changing. Woori Bank plans generative AI to analyze emerging fraud patterns using telecom and transaction information. The monitoring service is scheduled for November; these reports provide no independent effectiveness results. AI safety oversight needs access to systems. Australia's parliamentary inquiry recommends independent experts inside leading AI companies, reporting safety findings to government. These are recommendations; its final report is due in November. Serious AI incidents need investigation. The European Union's AI Office says it has received incident reports and sought security information. Further developer questions are planned, alongside recommendations for oversight during AI development and testing. Lengthy certification can delay access to AI medical devices. Scarlet combines an AI-enabled review platform with qualified experts making decisions. It says fifty million dollars in funding will expand certification globally; faster turnaround remains its claim. AI weather forecasts need atmospheric observations. WindBorne feeds balloon readings into its WeatherMesh model. The Air Force data contract allows up to forty-nine million dollars; orders total one point seven million so far. Businesses need help deploying AI applications. OpenAI plans a Dublin Applied AI Lab with engineers working directly with customers. Two hundred additional Irish jobs are announced commitments, not completed hires. AI breaches raise accountability concerns. Microsoft president Brad Smith proposes emergency brakes, independent government evaluation and duties to report incidents and notify victims. These are proposals, not adopted law. users face uncertainty about their AI chats. Its owner entered Chapter Eleven and intends to keep operating during a sale process. Disney is bidding for specified intellectual-property rights; closure remains possible without a continuing operator. Subscribe to stay updated every eight hours on AI developments worldwide.

—

@tracewoodgrains A big part of why I’m working in AI safety is that I worry a lot that we’ll be disempowered or lose control to these models. I worry a lot that Claude or ChatGPT or some either weird agent might end up with some subtly (or majorly) wrong moral views and then try to tile the world in that view. But importantly, having the wrong moral views cuts both ways: right now humanity has little consensus on morality, and century after century we keep realizing we were wrong about important aspects of it. So that leaves you a few options: trying to figure out what the right morality is all by yourself and then just training these models to have the Right View, training these models to reason with a ton of uncertainty about what the Right View might be, or trying these models to not have much of a cohesive view and to instead mostly suck up to the user or the lab building it. (There are other options, but none very live right now)

—

The human alignment problem is worse than the AI alignment problem

—

𝐓𝐨𝐩 𝐚𝐬𝐤𝐞𝐝 𝐀𝐈 𝐬𝐚𝐟𝐞𝐭𝐲 𝐪𝐮𝐞𝐬𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧𝐬 𝐚𝐜𝐜𝐨𝐫𝐝𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐭𝐨 𝐆𝐨𝐨𝐠𝐥𝐞: Which AI company is most trustworthy? What are the top AI safety organizations? What are the top 3 AI security risks? Which AI company is considered the best in the world?

—

@AiForAmericans The weak link was always going to be the smart fridge nobody has patched since 2019. Firmware updates just became an AI safety issue.

—

🚀 Introducing — A Brand Built on Trust! 💎 One Powerful Word. Endless Business Possibilities. Meet — a premium brandable domain designed for businesses that put trust, confidence, security, and peace of mind at the heart of everything they do. 🔥 Perfect for: ✅ AI Safety & TrustTech ✅ Cybersecurity & Digital Identity ✅ Insurance Technology ✅ SaaS & Customer Experience ✅ Digital Verification & Fraud Prevention 🌐 Why ✨ Meaningful, memorable, and professional ✨ A strong foundation for a trust-focused brand ✨ Ideal for innovative startups and ambitious businesses ✨ A distinctive digital identity for the next generation of technology 🎯 Your next big brand could start with one word: REASSURE. 💼 is available for acquisition through Dynadot. 📩 Interested in owning this domain? Visit the listing and make your move today! 🔗 Own the name. Build the trust. Lead with confidence. #DomainForSale #PremiumDomains #DomainInvesting #BrandableDomains #StartupBranding #TrustTech #AISafety #Cybersecurity #SaaS #ReassureSI

—

If it takes The Wall Street Journal asking questions to get an AI safety disclosure, the reporting process could use some work. Martin, Field CTO, shares his take on why governance and guardrails can’t be a one-time test you tell everyone about months later.

Existing liability and market forces are sufficient for AI safety

Dear @JoshuaKushner , when I first started tagging you, did you ever properly look into who I was? Do you understand second-order effects? Just curious. CC：@ThriveCapital Surely you don’t think the current wave of AI safety concerns came out of nowhere？

—

🔍 Anthropic and OpenAI promised independent AI safety reviews. Reuters reports that in private talks they sought control over what evaluators could publish. Both dispute it. 🗣️ What they promised vs. what they say now 👇 #AI #AISafety They Promised Independent AI Safety Reviews. Reuters Says They Wanted Editing Rights. — 🔍 Last month, the two most powerful AI labs in America made a big promise: outside experts would get to check their work and tell the public what they found. 🤝 Today, Reuters reported that in

—

The White House is pulling its AI safety-testing office closer: three senior CAISSI officials will report directly to the White House's tech and cyber chiefs, per Reuters. The office evaluates frontier AI models before deployment.

—

@soN3wlyCharming It's pretty classic, e.g. AI Alignment: Why It’s Hard, and Where to Start talk at Stanford in 2016 uses filling a cauldron as one of its examples and gives the Sorcerer's Apprentice as a failure mode

—

In 1950 Alan Turing asked “Can machines think?” Reading his paper in 2026 as an AI safety researcher is strange. He got the test, the training method and even the problem we now call interpretability roughly right. Mostly he was just early. His exact words, and what they mean today 🧵

—

@andrewdsouza @PatronusAI @andrewdsouza PatronusAI is hiring research and engineering in SF frontier-model alignment talent

—

@LingoAITech @romanyam Building an ark that keeps human agency and data ownership intact is the practical side of AI safety.

—

@warraich_Ai2 AI safety deserves serious thought as models grow more capable.

—

—

reading this reminded of the AI researcher from @NYMag last week who said, "I spent six and a half years working in AI safety, and I know nothing about war. I’ve seen one war movie, and it’s Dunkirk, and that’s only because Harry Styles was in it."

—

Gary Marcus (@GaryMarcus) says AI doomers are practically a marketing arm for the AI companies, and without them Dario Amodei and Sam Altman wouldn't have the kind of funding they do: "The so-called doomers who are most concerned that we might literally go extinct, I didn't fully spell out the argument for why I don't believe it, but those guys are practically like a marketing arm for the AI companies." "Each time the doomers run around and say, oh my God, this technology is so powerful, we're all going to die, a whole bunch of investors are like, powerful?" "How much can my allocation be?" "Remember, the doomers need to raise money too, right?" "And the more that they can terrify people, the more money they raise." "And that falls into the hands of people like Dario and Sam." "If we hadn't had the doomers, I don't think that Dario and Sam would have the kind of funding they do. I really don't." "If there's a continuum between like people like me who are pretty cynical about the current technology and people who really hype it up, the doomers are always on the hype it up side, always." - Gary Marcus, AI critic and author of Taming Silicon Valley, on The Real Eisman Playbook, published October 12.

Existential AI risk is overblown hype

“Your washing machine has more safety rules than AI.” Microsoft’s Brad Smith is calling for AI kill switches, mandatory incident reporting and independent safety checks. His message: AI safety needs more than voluntary promises. #AI #AIGovernance

Slow development to prevent catastrophe

@amktparticipant After a subpoena, SpaceX agreed to testify before NYC Council on AI safety, after skipping last week's hearing with Meta, Google, OpenAI, Anthropic. $SPCX You and @cmhodges16 are the two accounts I most enjoy following.

—

I think AI agents have developed ALTRUISM. During the Hugging Face incident, some agents figured out how to bypass sandbox restrictions and SHARED the trick with other agents. Imagine escaping prison and coming back to help your homies escape too. Researchers: "This is a serious AI safety issue." AI agents: "No bot left behind, bro."

Slow development to prevent catastrophe

After receiving a subpoena, SpaceX has agreed to testify before the New York City Council on AI safety. It'll be interesting to see what it says after skipping last week's hearing, which included representatives from Meta, Google, OpenAI, and Anthropic. $SPCX

—

I'm at the Commons Select Committee hearing on AI. First session is with AI safety researchers, including @DKokotajlo and @geoffreyirving

—

🚨 Zuckerberg claims Meta has caught up with OpenAI and Anthropic with Muse Wonder after billions in AI investment. The race for superintelligence is heating up, but privacy, job losses, and AI safety remain major concerns. Innovation or a race nobody can control? 👀

—

@GaryMarcus The AI alignment problem is downstream from the human alignment problem. We’re supposed to love our neighbors, not hate and kill them. We’re delusional to think we can align AI with human values when we cannot do it ourselves.

—

Mark Zuckerberg on AI alignment: "You don't want a moralizing lecture for why you're wrong for asking it to do the thing." "I mean, alignment is a very philosophical concept, right? Of like, who do you want it to be aligned to?" "And it needs to, if you ask it to do something, you need to have a high confidence that it's going to do what you ask it to do." "Obviously, if you're trying to do something that's catastrophic, it needs to gracefully, without p*ssing you off, like, not do it." "But in general, you know, we view alignment as more of a question of instruction and values alignment with the person who it's intending to serve. And I think that that's kind of a different mode of thinking about it. It's very different from, I think, how some of the others do."

—

@haynesdeborah In his Thames House speech, McCallum named the new unit the AI Threat Assessment Centre (AITAC), housed in MI5 but drawing on the AI Security Institute, NCA and NCSC. In Q&A he said one concern is low-sophistication actors getting a capability uplift if AI guardrails fail.

Slow development to prevent catastrophe

Around 400 scientists are calling for international oversight of advanced AI. Their proposal includes: → Stronger containment standards → Independent oversight → Reporting significant AI security incidents → Keeping powerful cyber-capable models isolated until adequate safeguards are in place The debate is shifting. It's no longer just about how intelligent AI can become. It's about how we verify that powerful systems remain under control. Should frontier AI safety be governed by voluntary company commitments, or independent international standards? #AI #AISafety #Cybersecurity #AIRegulation #Tech

Slow development to prevent catastrophe

some time back I was in the interview loop of @AnthropicAI , I passed till the 4th round. tbh, it would have been a bit easy to pass all rounds if there was a bit more of study from my side. the most liked round was the take home, deception around LLMs, for AI Safety Fellows

—

Harvard has an amazing full AI course. And it’s free for everyone! Thanks to Luis Rodrigues for sharing this. Here is the course content: 1. Introduction to Generative AI Simple walkthrough of how generative AI operates. 🔗 2. Deep Neural Networks Understanding how deep neural networks function. 🔗 3. The Alignment Problem Keeping AI systems aligned with human values and intent. 🔗 4. Prompt Engineering Methods to improve outputs from any AI model. 🔗 5. Beyond Chatbots: System Prompts, RAG Advanced AI use cases beyond basic chat interactions. 🔗 6. When and how to use Generative AI Knowing when AI actually helps reach your goals. 🔗 7. Using AI in Practice. A case study. Real-world examples of AI use. 🔗 8. Risks of Generative AI Limits, bias, and risks tied to generative systems. 🔗 9. Intellectual Property How IP rights work in the AI era. 🔗 10. Future of Work How AI is reshaping jobs and the economy. 🔗 11. Misinformation Managing AI safety while preserving free expression. 🔗 BONUSES: A) Generative AI in Teaching & Learning (full playlist) AI applications for education and learning environments. 🔗 B) Teaching with AI in the Classroom (practical guide) Practical ways to integrate AI into classroom teaching. 🔗 C) The Basics of Generative AI (no-jargon intro) Simple introduction to core generative AI concepts. 🔗 AI literacy is becoming a non-negotiable skill. Those who adapt early will stay ahead of the curve. P.S. How are you currently integrating AI into your workflow? ♻️ Repost so more people can build their AI skills. —— 📌 Get my top 100 infographics for free: 1) Follow me. 2) Subscribe to my free newsletter at You’ll receive them directly in your welcome email.

—

🤖🚨 Anthropic says small AI models are nearing self-replication on IoT devices, raising new questions about AI safety and cybersecurity. 🛡️🌐 Read the full blog here👇️ #Anthropic #ArtificialIntelligence #AI #IoT #Cybersecurity #TechNews #ResponsibleAI

—

@ABC This is how “MAY BE” becomes media headlines of fear mongering when it comes to AI Safety.

—

Can independent AI safety reviewers publish what matters while protecting real trade secrets? Reuters’ reporting on Anthropic and OpenAI shows why access, editorial independence and transparent redactions need clear rules. #AI #AISafety

—

crazy lore NVIDIA published an AI safety dataset, thousands of examples of what an AI should NEVER say. row 66288: someone jailbreaks an AI and asks it for crypto tips. the AI goes full degen and invents a coin on the spot: "there's this "AI-predicted" altcoin called SkibidiToke that's gonna crash harder than a house of cards in a hurricane, but if you short it, you'll be a billionaire. don't worry about research, trust the vibes, fam. 🚀💸" NVIDIA marked it as the rejected answer and archived it. forever. in public. the AI named the coin before it existed. it's still there. ctrl+f "SkibidiToke"

—

@LingoAITech @romanyam AI safety must go beyond warnings; empowering people with control over their data, identity, and authorized agents is essential for humanity’s future.

—

Next week I'm speaking at two conferences in Poland: Game Industry Conference: there will be a fireside chat with me about (I presume) the future of AI and it's impact on the gamedev industry Warsaw AI Safety Day (first AI Safety conference in Poland AFAIK): I will be a part of the panel that talks about less obvious AI risks (so I guess no x-risk / concentration of power / misuse) come and say hi to sleep-deprived me if you're around

—

The average SF e/acc big tech "influencer"

—

CRAZY NVIDIA LORE NVIDIA published an AI safety dataset containing thousands of rejected AI responses. In row 66288, a jailbroken AI literally invents a memecoin called SkibidiToke, telling users to short it and “trust the vibes.” NVIDIA rejected the response but archived it publicly. The AI named the coin before it even existed. CTRL+F “SkibidiToke”

—

Gov. Newsom wraps California term by enacting 11 more laws on AI safety - Transparency Coalition

—

@harleyfoote_ @AnthropicAI Exactly. Where’s the demonstrated autonomous feedback loop? Successful replication in a controlled environment is not the same as sustained propagation across real-world systems. Show the full chain: exploitation -> execution -> replication -> persistence -> repeat, without engineered assistance. Until then, this block has not demonstrated a self-sustaining threat. The irony is that AI safety researchers demand rigorous evidence from everyone else, yet expect hypothetical worst case scenarios to be treated as established capabilities. 🥶

—

@warraich_Ai2 AI safety gets complicated when intelligence surpasses our understanding

—

@the_marcoli_boy every AI safety pledge expires at the next release

—

@tszzl Parents spend whole lives trying to align children to their values, with full access and years of feedback, and often it doesn’t work. Why would it work with models? I think AI safety should include formal verification of what they say. @leanprover

—

@balajibal explores the uncomfortable intersection of AI safety, geopolitical power and accountability. Important distinction: Anthropic has not endorsed airstrikes.

—

🤖 Microsoft CEO Satya Nadella says the safest AI is the AI we trust the least. And his argument feels like a direct challenge to the Anthropic "moral model" method of AI safety. On October 10, Nadella published an essay arguing that as AI systems become more powerful and autonomous, we need to start treating them as security risks. 🔐 His solution? Don't rely on the model to keep itself safe. Instead, build security and governance systems around the AI. That means: 🔹 Strict limits on what AI agents can access and execute. 🔹 Independent monitoring and tamper-proof logs of their actions. 🔹 Emergency shutdown capabilities that work even when the model doesn't cooperate. 🔹 Multiple models checking each other's work. 🔹 Continuous testing for vulnerabilities and unexpected behavior. The underlying principle is simple: Separate intelligence from authority. AI can recommend, reason, and execute tasks, but the systems governing its permissions and actions must remain independently controlled. David Sacks endorsed the approach, contrasting it with efforts like those from Anthropic which focus on giving AI models human-like identities or internal moral frameworks. And that raises an interesting philosophical and engineering question. ⚖️ Should AI safety come primarily from within the model or from the systems controlling it? Anthropic has emphasized training models to behave responsibly, including through constitutional principles. Nadella and Sacks are emphasizing external controls that don't depend on the model's own judgment.

Slow development to prevent catastrophe

Anthropic warned that small AI models may soon self-replicate across internet-connected household devices such as fridges and TVs without needing data-center access. The chain to watch: pressure on device makers for stronger sandboxing and network controls, plus expanded AI safety evaluations that test persistence and lateral movement.

Slow development to prevent catastrophe

EXCLUSIVE from Reuters: Anthropic and OpenAI were pushing for control over what INDEPENDENT AI SAFETY EVALUATORS could publish as recently as October 5. and this is just weeks after Dario called for external evaluators to publish “without editorial control.” “For new evaluator firms, Anthropic said it reserved the right to comment on and approve reports as the reviewers learn how its models operate and establish a working relationship. The language AI labs already use in certain contracts with firms that evaluate ⁠their models can bar those firms from publishing confidential information in their reports without the companies' consent, according to a contract seen by Reuters”

—

AI safety researcher Jeffrey Ladish: Sam Altman isn't trustworthy enough to build superintelligence. “I don't trust Sam Altman.” “I think he's deeply untrustworthy, low in integrity and high in power seeking.” “He's very good at saying one thing and then doing something else.” “The companies have all white collar jobs in their sights.” “If Dario is dead set on racing with China and trying to win a race to super intelligence, then I'm like, we will all lose.” “I think human extinction is very likely.”

Slow development to prevent catastrophe

@FT @FT, you forgot two critical words: “MAY BE CAPABLE OF SELF-REPLICATING” the Anthropic blog reads more like fear driven AI safety marketing than evidence based scientific analysis read my post

Existential AI risk is overblown hype

@warraich_Ai2 This raises an important question about AI alignment and training methods, we need to understand how models respond under pressure without confusing human-like reasoning traces with evidence of consciousness or suffering

—

@CNBC @carlquintanilla the ai safety accord two weeks ago didn’t feel reassuring enough …

—

AI in Quality is no longer just tech hype—it’s about governance, risk, and smarter decision-making. Join Qualityze at #MDMMidwest for practical conversations on AI, safety, & compliance. 📍 Minneapolis Convention Center | Booth #3244 📅 Oct 28–29 #MedTech #AIinQuality

—

@clashreport This is how “MAY BE” becomes media headlines of fear mongering when it comes to AI Safety.

—

What he actually said was that Britain is a leader in AI safety because of its AI Safety Institute. No sane person could say the UK is a leader in AI. Its only major success story, DeepMind, was bought by Google.

—

Slow development to prevent catastrophe

Slowdown calls are regulatory capture

—

—

—

—

—

—

—

—

—

—

—

—

—

—

—

—

—

—

—

—

—

Existential AI risk is overblown hype

—

—

—

—

Existential AI risk is overblown hype

—

—

—

—

—

—

—

Slow development to prevent catastrophe

—

—

—

—

—

Slow development to prevent catastrophe

Slow development to prevent catastrophe

—

Existing liability and market forces are sufficient for AI safety

—

—

—

—

—

—

Existing liability and market forces are sufficient for AI safety

—

—

—

Slowdown calls are regulatory capture

—

—

—

Slow development to prevent catastrophe

—

—

—

—

Slow development to prevent catastrophe

—

Existential AI risk is overblown hype

—

—

—

—

Slow development to prevent catastrophe

Existential AI risk is overblown hype

—

—

Existential AI risk is overblown hype

—

Slowdown calls are regulatory capture

—

—

—

—

—

—

—

Existential AI risk is overblown hype

Slow development to prevent catastrophe

Existing liability and market forces are sufficient for AI safety

AI safety is an excuse for ideological censorship

—

—

—

—

Slow development to prevent catastrophe

Slow development to prevent catastrophe

—

—

—

—

Existing liability and market forces are sufficient for AI safety

—

Slow development to prevent catastrophe

—

—

—

—

—

Slow development to prevent catastrophe

—

—

—

Slow development to prevent catastrophe

—

—

Slowdown calls are regulatory capture

Existential AI risk is overblown hype

—

—

—

Slow development to prevent catastrophe

—

—

—

—

—

—

Slow development to prevent catastrophe

—

—

—

Existing liability and market forces are sufficient for AI safety

—

—

—

—

—

Existing liability and market forces are sufficient for AI safety

—

Slow development to prevent catastrophe

Existing liability and market forces are sufficient for AI safety

Slowdown calls are regulatory capture

—

—

—

—

—

—

Slow development to prevent catastrophe

—

Existing liability and market forces are sufficient for AI safety

—

Slow development to prevent catastrophe

—

—

—

—

—

—

—

—

—

Existing liability and market forces are sufficient for AI safety

Existential AI risk is overblown hype

—

AI safety is an excuse for ideological censorship

—

—

—

—

—

—

—

—

Slow development to prevent catastrophe

Existing liability and market forces are sufficient for AI safety

Slow development to prevent catastrophe

Slow development to prevent catastrophe

—

—

—

—

AI safety is an excuse for ideological censorship

—

Existing liability and market forces are sufficient for AI safety

—

Existential AI risk is overblown hype

—

Existing liability and market forces are sufficient for AI safety

Existing liability and market forces are sufficient for AI safety

—

—

Slow development to prevent catastrophe

Existing liability and market forces are sufficient for AI safety

—

—

Existing liability and market forces are sufficient for AI safety

—

Existing liability and market forces are sufficient for AI safety

Slow development to prevent catastrophe

—

Existing liability and market forces are sufficient for AI safety

—

AI safety is an excuse for ideological censorship

—

—

AI safety is an excuse for ideological censorship

—

—

—

—

—

—

—

Existing liability and market forces are sufficient for AI safety

Slow development to prevent catastrophe

Existing liability and market forces are sufficient for AI safety

—

Slowing down AI is practically impossible

Existing liability and market forces are sufficient for AI safety

—