still don't know what e/acc means and at this point im too afraid to ask

Claude has discovered a previously unknown enzyme system hidden in the DNA of bacteriophages. Beside the enzyme’s gene sits a long array of repeating DNA—a structure that looks somewhat similar to CRISPR. We don’t yet understand what this system does, but only a handful of known systems share its features, and all of them are able to cut, copy, and paste DNA. Historically, the discovery of such programmable systems has helped revolutionize medicine. CRISPR, for instance, is now the foundation of genetic medicines. But it will take much more work to learn what this system does, and whether it can be put to similar use. Read more: anthropic.com/news/claude-di…

There’s an impulse in American politics, a set of tactics and drives that has proven very effective at extinguishing speech. We once called it McCarthyism. Another time we called it Wokeism. One day in the future we will have some name for the campaign that is underway against all people who believe in serious AI risks, and whatever that name ends up being, it will be yet another name for that old impulse. It’s an ugly one. I recommend you avoid being a part of it, no matter your politics or your thoughts on AI. I suggest you think for yourself. You really do want to worry about the state projecting too much power over AI, centralizing control or robbing us of the unambiguous benefits of the technology in the name of preserving the economic status quo. But there really are grave risks from AI that go beyond what any other mass-market digital technology has posed. These two things aren’t totalizing worldviews that exist in conflict. You don’t need to believe only one or the other. *Both of them are true.* The question should not be “which facts should we ignore, and which should we pay attention to?” The question is: “how do we walk the narrow corridor between all these realities which are in deep tension with one another?” You should think for yourself. Assess other people’s work for yourself rather than allowing powerful people to put a label on them for you. As someone who has been a journey that has taken me to different perceived “sides” of the AI debate, believe me: You’ll find that there are bright and thoughtful people on both the “safety” and “accelerate” sides, and you will also find that both sides have their imbeciles, charlatans, and, occasionally, true cretins. It’s your job to figure out what’s what. Don’t let other people think for you. Don’t be played a fool.

fwiw I think the actual reason leaders of AI frontier labs suddenly seem to agree to pace AI development is (a) safety measures are currently so crap that they're likely to end up in court if not jail, and they all agree that no one wants that (b) they see no major new model advancement coming up soon anyway and need an excuse (c) shift in public opinion the talk of existential threat is mostly there to keep you distracted and the stock market happy.

Can we all agree that “frontier labs are lying about AI safety to pump their IPOs, capture the regulators, and make more money” is a conspiracy theory at this point? For it to be true, Sam, Dario, Demis, and Elon all have to be lying, along with a big chunk of their execs, chief scientists, and resigning employees. It also asks you to believe the labs volunteered for much heavier scrutiny that slows them down in the middle of the biggest ARR growth run in the history of capitalism with no signs of slowing down … because they want to make more money by inventing regulatory hurdles that only they can clear(?). And OpenAI has now said it would even be willing to delay its own IPO over safety concerns - i.e. put off (maybe risk entirely) the biggest liquidity event ever in Silicon Valley. The conspiracy requires us to believe that they’re doing that to make more money(?) Elon agrees with Dario; i.e. the guy who ran D.O.G.E is *asking for more scrutiny and regulation*. And we're supposed to believe that's because he thinks it will help his company succeed(?) A much simpler explanation at this point: they think the risk is real.