NEW: Dario Amodei has said that AI systems "may be deserving of important rights." Anthropic's top safety researchers argue AI may be "justified in going rogue." Experts at Google and OpenAI worry about a digital "slave trade." So do some government officials. Once relegated to science fiction, the idea of "AI welfare" has become shockingly mainstream at some of the most powerful companies in the world. It is changing the way AI research is conducted and the way models are programmed. And critics say these changes have raised the odds of all kinds of catastrophic scenarios—including the ones these companies are warning about. I spent months investigating the frontier labs and AI "safety" experts seeking to regulate AI. What I found was a profoundly anti-human ideology that would alarm the average citizen and could determine the future of a world-altering technology.🧵 freebeacon.com/america/suici…

There's no reason for software to be slow anymore: danluu.com/perf-opt/

So proud of our security team! They caught, contained & publicly disclosed an attack unlike anything we've seen before, and did it at record speed. Also massively grateful to @Zai_org: they shared GLM5.2 as open weights (for free!) with the world and it became a key part of our defense. This is day one for cybersecurity in the age of agents & we're all learning that secrecy is not the answer & that all defenders (not just a few selected ones) everywhere need more powerful models without restrictions, especially open ones!

Defenders need to have access to good models so they can close security holes permanently. The incorrect model people work off of is that there is an unbounded number of security holes in the world, and that if you get smarter and smarter AI, that means you’ll just keep finding security holes forever. That’s not true. If you give everyone developing software access to good AI models, they will close off the holes, and eventually, the well of security vulnerabilities dries up. AI isn’t a crisis for computer security, it is a solution. The best hope we have of climbing out of the computer security crisis that we have been in since 1988 is letting developers fix the problems using AI systems.

One can imagine an alternate reality of the 1990's when 3D games rapidly emerged if the makers of the era were run by brazen opportunists who employed teams of lobbyists seeking regulatory capture: scare the world into thinking 3D graphics might be an existential threat.

As believers of open research, we are disappointed to see Anthropic silently degrading Fable 5 for AI development "Any topic related to building pretraining pipelines, distributed training infrastructure, or ML accelerator design... may have limited effectiveness through Claude via methods such as prompt modification, steering vectors, or parameter-efficient fine-tuning." Not only do they get to decide what you use LLMs for in research, but this also enables them to silently intervene in your research without you knowing. This sets a dangerous precedent. If a model refuses openly, users can understand the boundary. If a model falls back to another model, users can still evaluate the difference. But if a model silently modifies or weakens its own answers while still pretending to help, researchers lose the ability to know whether a failed result came from their own idea, their implementation, or an invisible intervention by the model provider. That is not safety. Safety policies should be transparent, auditable, and user-visible. On top of that, the people most harmed by this are not the largest labs with massive teams and proprietary infrastructure. It is the independent researchers, academic groups, startups, and open-source builders who rely on public tools to compete, innovate, and pioneer AI for everyone else.

RTX spark #msbuild

Co-sign.

This new LM talkie-lm.com/chat is pretty fun, #bicycleface

> "there's a workaround (use "/effort max")" This is so dystopian. The future is going to be full of this shit.

Pluribus is accidentally a great metaphor for how western governments treat those who refuse to assimilate and actively try to destroy them from within.

Debloat it guys, don’t preload the bloat.

You're being played by people who want regulatory capture. They are scaring everyone with dubious studies so that open source models are regulated out of existence.

I'm old enough to remember when a "new browser" meant someone actually wrote a rendering engine.

Long article in the NYT today about "cloud compute and data centers killing water supply"...and then you find out the number they mean less than one golf course or small corn farm or tiny rice paddy. Be serious, people.

NVIDIA over USB4 on MacBook is ready to try! * ADT-UT3G dock + any 30/40/50 series GPU * Disable SIP * Install driver `extra/usbgpu/tbgpu` * Install NVK compiler `brew install tinymesa` * Test with: `DEBUG=2 NV_NAK=1 NV=1 python3 test/test_tiny.py TestTiny.test_plus`

新聞稿沒說清楚的是，在美國生產第一片Nvidia Blackwell晶圓後，接著還是需要運送到台灣做CoWoS封裝，Blackwell晶片生產才算完成。兩年後的今天，如果能在美國開始先進封裝，進度已算超預期。 blogs.nvidia.com/blog/tsmc-b…

It's easier to innovate when you're the original of something. People copying you can only copy a snapshot of your current state. They don't know which aspects of the snapshot are essential and which are random things you'd been about to change anyway.