I'm quite nerd-sniped by how clever out-of-the-box hacking techniques this rogue bot swarm invented, such as using link shorteners and screenshot services in creative unintended ways:

The "AI can cause harm" psyop that I'm part of runs deeper than you may think:

I really enjoyed my conversation with @BillOReilly and hearing his takes on AI: piped.video/watch?v=87yoGSBQ…

Lots of very good proposals in this bi-partisan humanist ai declaration. Still some that we should debate, but overall its the right direction. I encourage everyone to take a look.

Likewise

I'm delighted to share that @mustafasuleyman, CEO of Microsoft AI, co-founder of Google DeepMind and Inflection AI, has signed the Pro-Human AI Declaration. If you too support it, please join him and over a million others by signing it here – the momentum is building! Let's build tools not beings & keep humans in charge. humanstatement.org

Our Pro-Human Assembly had probably the greatest media coverage of anything I've ever worked on: news.google.com/search?q=%22…

It was based on the Pro-Human Declaration. If you support it, please join over a million signatories here: humanstatement.org

On here it can feel like the ratio of people who want AI to go slower, vs people who want it to go faster is 1:1. But in the broader world the ratio is an eyewatering 34:1. More Americans think the US is secretly run by lizard people than think AI is advancing too slowly.

Democratic-socialist Sen. Bernie Sanders and MAGA loyalist Steve Bannon rarely find themselves on the same side of an issue. But concerns about AI have created some unlikely political common ground. This week, both appeared at the Pro-Human Assembly in Washington, D.C., where they warned about the risks of unregulated AI growth and called for stronger guardrails to keep the technology under human control. Here’s how the fight over AI is bringing political opposites together, in one minute.

The Overton window is shifting remarkably fast right now, with @sama now also endorsing both this and a Trump-Xi Nobel Peace price for avoiding excessive risks on both sides of the Pacific:

Big Tech doesn’t want you asking the obvious question: Who is Al?

Thanks Jakub @merettm for this candid take on the AI race! I have a concrete pitch to you. I agree with you on a) and c): a) "no lab has solved alignment and monitoring to a sufficient degree to continue responsibly scaling at maximum speed for much longer” b) "I expect and hope for voluntary slowdowns to become commonplace until shared safety bars are established" c) "international coordination on future AI development needs to become a top priority for governments around the world” But b) won’t happen because of game theory: “show me the incentives and I’ll show you the outcome”. So here’s my pitch to you: 1) Put all voluntary commitments from OpenAI, Anthropic & GDM into Astra and have it draft model legislation for the lowest common denominator. 2) OpenAI, Anthropic & GDM pitch this in D.C. as executive orders and legislation that binds you and your competitors conditional on a Trump-Xi deal holding Chinese companies to the same standards. 3) Publicly state that any president pulling off such a successful deal deserves the Nobel Peace Price - I think we agree on this!

I have long looked to @deanwball as a voice of clarity, expertise, and—perhaps most rare of all—moderation on AI. This feels significant.