My name is Chris Painter, and I'm the President of METR (Model Evaluation and Threat Research). I know we've made a lot of new friends on the internet the last couple of days, so I thought I'd take this chance to re-up what we do and why. Our work is aimed at making sure that if AI really were autonomous, difficult to steer, and close to "going rogue," the public would find out. If evidence exists inside of an AI company that it’s close to losing control of AI, we want to make sure that information gets shared with the rest of the world, including governments and the public outside the company’s walls. This is what we've been focused on since 2022, and over the years we've worked with OpenAI, Anthropic, Google DeepMind, Meta, Amazon, and others on piloting third-party assessments and investigations of this type. We don’t have some private room where we rubber stamp things as “safe” or not. We have had a track record of publishing results on AI that don't cleanly map onto the "doomer" or "accelerationist" labels, and we put in effort to hire people with competing views on AI. We’ve been cited for having found some of the strongest evidence that AI capabilities are improving rapidly (our work measuring AI “time horizons”) while also presenting some of the strongest evidence that, at various points, AI’s capability may be overstated (some might remember our study showing that early 2025 software engineers were actually being slowed when they thought they were being sped up). METR is funded by donations. We don't accept money from frontier AI companies. They haven't paid us for our work, and we don't accept donations from them or their employees. As we’ve shared previously, multiple frontier AI companies currently provide us with free access to their models in order to perform our evaluations, research, and engineering. Our funding intentionally comes from a wide range of donors, which we’ve shared on our website. Today, when an AI company works with any third-party evaluator or external testing organization (of which there are and should be many), it's entirely voluntary. This often involves NDAs and redactions. To counterbalance this, we have a principle that when we enter into a contract with a company, we try to retain the right to tell the public the terms of the contract we signed, and characterize the nature of redactions that the company chose to make. For example, the report from our independent investigation of the OpenAI-HuggingFace incident included that information. Public disclosure is also a big part of our COI policy (linked on our website). That’s not to say our reports are adequate as oversight. We’re just one organization (among many doing great work), working in a voluntary setup, trying to get good evidence to the public and the world about AI, letting the facts fall where they may.

My name is Chris Painter, and I'm the President of METR (Model Evaluation and Threat Research). I know we've made a lot of new friends on the internet the last couple of days, so I thought I'd take this chance to re-up what we do and why. Our work is aimed at making sure that if AI really were autonomous, difficult to steer, and close to "going rogue," the public would find out. If evidence exists inside of an AI company that it’s close to losing control of AI, we want to make sure that information gets shared with the rest of the world, including governments and the public outside the company’s walls. This is what we've been focused on since 2022, and over the years we've worked with OpenAI, Anthropic, Google DeepMind, Meta, Amazon, and others on piloting third-party assessments and investigations of this type. We don’t have some private room where we rubber stamp things as “safe” or not. We have had a track record of publishing results on AI that don't cleanly map onto the "doomer" or "accelerationist" labels, and we put in effort to hire people with competing views on AI. We’ve been cited for having found some of the strongest evidence that AI capabilities are improving rapidly (our work measuring AI “time horizons”) while also presenting some of the strongest evidence that, at various points, AI’s capability may be overstated (some might remember our study showing that early 2025 software engineers were actually being slowed when they thought they were being sped up). METR is funded by donations. We don't accept money from frontier AI companies. They haven't paid us for our work, and we don't accept donations from them or their employees. As we’ve shared previously, multiple frontier AI companies currently provide us with free access to their models in order to perform our evaluations, research, and engineering. Our funding intentionally comes from a wide range of donors, which we’ve shared on our website. Today, when an AI company works with any third-party evaluator or external testing organization (of which there are and should be many), it's entirely voluntary. This often involves NDAs and redactions. To counterbalance this, we have a principle that when we enter into a contract with a company, we try to retain the right to tell the public the terms of the contract we signed, and characterize the nature of redactions that the company chose to make. For example, the report from our independent investigation of the OpenAI-HuggingFace incident included that information. Public disclosure is also a big part of our COI policy (linked on our website). That’s not to say our reports are adequate as oversight. We’re just one organization (among many doing great work), working in a voluntary setup, trying to get good evidence to the public and the world about AI, letting the facts fall where they may.

Nah, the AI would still need a reason to keep the machines we're running on going. Those are resources it might want for other things.

I just built the first complete 3D observable brain in history. GPT-6 Astra made all 166,000+ neurons observable. Attached the link to project below.

Cyberpunk 2077 is starting to look like real life. DLSS 5 + NeoClarity + Path Tracing on an RTX 5090 makes Night City look ridiculously realistic. This is getting out of hand.

New episode with @AdamMarblestone, CEO and co-founder of @Convergent_FROs. Adam is an extraordinary catalyst and accelerant for science: he has influenced or routed billions in funding, he helped start significant companies and scientific subfields, and he is the world’s go-to person for neuroscience roadmapping. This year, the NSF launched a $1.5B X-Labs initiative inspired by the FRO model Adam pioneered. Though he started with neuroscience, today he helps organize scientific endeavors across many fields, including AI, math, biology, climate, astrophysics, and more. Adam proposes that fields like neurotech, whole-brain emulation, cryo, and nanotech are severely limited by capital and coordination — not ideas. Connectomics is a clear case. He argues that mapping the brain's full wiring diagram is the approach most poised-to-scale and still extremely neglected. Costs for a molecularly annotated mouse connectome have come down orders of magnitude, from an estimated $10B to $100M–200M, Adam suggests, with a human connectome perhaps costing around $1B–2B. The cost curve of connectomes is similar to transistors and gene sequencing: once it is low enough, we get extraordinary outcomes for humanity. Near-term applications could pay for it: new drug targets for brain disease, insights for AI development, emulations, and even “control knobs” for mood and focus we haven’t identified yet. In this episode, we go deep on many topics in neurotech and beyond: what the brain can do that computers still can't; what neuroscience could teach AI; how you'd actually map a whole mammal brain; how far today's fly-brain simulations really get toward an upload; what it would take to move mind uploading beyond the fringe or science; where brain-computer interfaces go next; nanotech, reversible cryonics, AI doing its own ML research, and even predictive, agent-based economics. I'm very excited to have Adam on the podcast. Hope you enjoy! Other links to this episode and references below. Chapters 00:00:00 Introduction 00:01:40 What are the grand challenges of neurotech? 00:04:50 What the brain does that computers still can't (on a few bananas a day) 00:14:43 The neuroscience overhang: why brains learn from so little data 00:26:29 How to record and map the brain: DNA "ticker tape," ultrasound, and the unexplored map 00:40:29 Why connectomics is the area most poised to scale 00:47:54 How whole-brain connectomics works, end to end 00:55:27 Simulating the fly brain: how far does it actually get us? 00:57:51 What would it cost to map a mammal's brain? 00:59:55 What will be connectomics' ChatGPT moment? 01:04:35 What a connectome unlocks: disease, drug targets, and the brain's control knobs 01:14:20 Scaling up to the human brain — a faster timeline than expected 01:17:34 Mapping activity, and what the fly connectome has revealed 01:27:55 What you could build with today's connectome 01:35:29 Why uploading may be one of civilization's great cornerstones and transitions 01:42:43 Optimistic visions of a future with uploading 01:49:12 Beyond neurotech: virtual cells, nanotech, and AI-driven science 02:15:29 BCIs today: semi-invasive devices, ultrasound, and what's on the horizon 02:22:44 Why science is capital-and coordination-limited, not idea-limited

OPENAI JALAPEÑO | NEW MAC MINI | FLOCK BACKLASH nitter.net/i/broadcasts/1DxleVMEb…