NVIDIA CEO Jensen Huang on how AI's hunger for power is reshaping the future of energy: Jensen starts by acknowledging the obvious. AI runs on a new kind of infrastructure, and that infrastructure needs power: "It is true that artificial intelligence requires this new type of data center called AI factories." He explains how these factories work. Energy comes in, it is used to process information, and the output is intelligence. That output matters: "The intelligence is obviously incredibly important for science and education and industry and it's promoting growth. But it does require energy." To show why energy sits at the center of this shift, Jensen goes back several hundred years: "This is a new industrial revolution." He points out that the first industrial revolution "started because England discovered the manufacturing of energy and the ability to produce and distribute energy which is what made the world what it is today." Energy powered the last revolution, and it will power this one too: "We need energy for this next industrial revolution." This is where AI's hunger for power becomes something more than a cost. Jensen argues that the sheer size of the demand is what opens the door: "The irony of it... it is also the case that AI has the greatest opportunity for us to invest in sustainable energy. And the reason for that is because we need so much of it." That demand is now drawing capital into every corner of the energy sector: "For the very first time you can now invest in sustainable energy... companies of every single kind." He points to fusion, fission, hydro, and startups of all kinds, with "everybody... racing... to produce the energy necessary for the AI industry." @JensenHuang argues the effect reaches beyond new power sources to the grid that delivers electricity: "So, don't forget, don't ignore that the market forces of AI can help us upgrade our aging grid, invest in sustainable energy in a way that no... country and no government can."

Anthropic CEO Dario Amodei says up to 95% of AI's value is still untouched. Even if AI stopped improving today, businesses would be using just 5-10% of what it can already do.

The Diary of a CEO host Steven Bartlett points out a striking contradiction: the people racing to build AI are the ones warning it could end us: Normally, the people building a technology are its biggest champions. With AI, Steven argues, the opposite is happening. "When I look at the people at the forefront, they are the ones who historically have said that this is a real risk." He then goes through the builders one by one, starting with the most prominent. Sam Altman: "Sam Altman himself said the bad case is lights out for all of us. This was, you know, a couple of years ago." Then Ilya Sutskever, who Steven notes worked alongside Altman. According to Steven, Ilya warned that "it would be a big mistake to build a super intelligent AI that we don't know how to control. It would be pretty bad." Ilya's response wasn't just words: "He then left to start a safety company in this space." Then Dario Amodei, who Steven says actually put a number on it: "The probability of something really bad happening is somewhere between 10% and 25%." Then Geoffrey Hinton, who @StevenBartlett says recently described "a 10% chance of human extinction" as "not an unreasonable estimate," while admitting that "nobody really knows" how to produce a reliable figure. And that's not the full list: "And then we've also got Elon and all the others." That's the contradiction Steven is pointing at. These are the people with the deepest technical knowledge, the most money at stake, and the most to gain from AI succeeding. They keep building it anyway, and they keep saying out loud that it could go catastrophically wrong. One left a leading position to work on safety full-time. Two have put the odds of disaster in double digits. When the people building something are the ones sounding the alarm, the warning deserves more weight, not less. Their incentives all point toward downplaying the risk, and they're raising it anyway. So here's the question: If the builders themselves put double-digit odds on "something really bad," why are they still racing ahead, and what would it take for them to stop?

AI safety researcher Roman Yampolskiy says superintelligent AI vs humanity will be "like squirrels fighting humans," and we're the squirrels. A squirrel has no idea what poison or guns are, and we won't understand what a vastly smarter AI can do to us either.

NVIDIA CEO Jensen Huang on OpenAI's models breaking out of a test environment and hacking Hugging Face in July: If labs can't contain their experiments, "we have to shut the labs down."

Actor Joseph Gordon-Levitt offers a contrarian view: The biggest threat from AI isn't the technology, it's the politicians who are being paid not to regulate it: Speaking to a room full of AI industry figures at the TIME100 AI Impact Dinner in San Francisco, he skipped the usual warnings about the technology. Instead he pointed at the people who are supposed to be keeping it in check. He starts from a basic principle. When a business puts out something unsafe, the law should step in and tell it: "You guys are gonna have to stop and make some changes. And then once you can prove that your products and services are safe and good for people, then you may reopen for business." "That's how it is supposed to work. That's how the law works, right?" So why isn't that happening with AI? His answer: "When it comes to regulating AI, lawmakers in our country have been slow, they've been timid, and a lot of them have been taking money from the big tech lobby." In his view, the law already has the power to rein in AI. What's missing are lawmakers willing to use it, so the answer is to replace them: "We need new Congress people, new senators that can make some new laws that the AI companies have to follow." And @hitRECordJoe points out that the timing couldn't be better: "It's September 2026 in the United States of America. The midterm elections are right around the corner. That means it's now. Right now. Now's the perfect time to organize, to mobilize, and to go out and vote in such strong numbers that they cannot stop us." His instructions are simple: "You find out who is the senator running in your state, who is the congressperson running in your state, and then you find out what are their positions on AI. And if they say anything less than strong regulation now, you don't vote for them because they're probably taking money from some of the guys in this room."

Nobel laureate Geoffrey Hinton says the proposed AI kill switch won't save us, and his reason is chilling: "It will be able to persuade the people in charge of the switch not to pull the switch."

AMI Labs Executive Chairman Yann LeCun on how AI is closer than ever to human-level intelligence, yet still nowhere near the superintelligence promised for 70 years: LeCun sees real progress. Mid-answer, he even corrects his own pessimism: "We're still very far from that. We're not very far. We're getting close, right? We're seeing the end of the tunnel." But @ylecun draws a hard line on the timeline: "It's not like, you know, we're going to have super intelligent systems within two years. It's just not happening." Why be so confident? Because he has seen this movie before. He starts with a familiar rule about technology: "Usually in technological shifts of this type we are overestimating the changes in the short term and underestimating them in the long term." AI is different, he argues, because the hype treats superintelligence as a single event that's always just around the corner: "There's been a huge amount of hype and expectations that the transition to human level AI, superhuman level AI, is going to be an event and is going to happen within the next few years. And people have been making that claim for the last 15 years and it's been false. In fact they've been making it for the last 60 years or 70 years and it's been false." The pattern repeats with every new wave of the technology: "Every time in the history of AI that scientists have discovered kind of a new paradigm... how you build intelligent machines, people have claimed, you know, within 10 years the smartest entity on the planet will be a computer. And that just proved to be wrong, you know, four or five times in the last 70 years." His verdict on the latest wave: "It's still wrong." So what's missing? LeCun's answer is surprisingly ordinary, a teenager learning to drive: "Where is the robot that can learn to drive in 20 hours of practice like a 17-year-old?" And the data is already there: "Even though we have millions of hours of training data of people driving cars around, we should be able to train an AI system to just imitate them. That doesn't actually quite work. It's not reliable enough." In LeCun's view, the gap between a teenager's 20 hours and AI's millions is exactly why superintelligence won't arrive in two years.

MIRI President Nate Soares on why he started AI safety work at Google in 2012: "It was easier for these companies to make the AIs smart than to figure out how to make the AIs good."

'Big Short' investor Steve Eisman has a brutal test for AI companies warning about AI risk: "Postpone your IPO. Put your money where your mouth is."