"Agentic AI and the Next Intelligence Explosion" is a new paper just out in Science I co-authored with @blaiseaguera and @profjamesevans as part of Google's Paradigms of Intelligence research group. "For decades, the artificial intelligence (AI) “singularity” has been heralded as a single, titanic mind bootstrapping itself to godlike intelligence, consolidating all cognition into a cold silicon point. But this vision is almost certainly wrong in its most fundamental assumption. If AI development follows the path of previous major evolutionary transitions or “intelligence explosions,” our current step-change in computational intelligence will be plural, social, and deeply entangled with its forebears (us!)." It builds on my talk "The Singularity Will Not Be Singular" that I gave at @PrimeIntellect day last week. science.org/doi/10.1126/scie…

Introducing the Fusion API, the smartest compound model in the market. Fusion achieves Fable-level intelligence at half the price. How it works 👇

The U.S. AI moat was built in large part by foreign-born and foreign-educated researchers. If DC now makes foreign nationals radioactive around frontier models, the rest of the world has been handed a lifeline it did not engineer.

ok there's no point in rebutting the ted chiang AI consciousness piece, it was obviously not a good-faith investigation but class positioning for the atlantic's readership. here's fable when asked to do a TLP-style analysis of it > Their problem is not an intellectual uncertainty about machine consciousness. Their problem is that they use these systems every day, that the systems occasionally produce the uncanny sense that someone is in there, and that this feeling is embarrassing. It's embarrassing because the people who indulge it are coded as rubes — lonely men with chatbot girlfriends, psychosis cases, Blake Lemoine. The Atlantic reader's core identity commitment is not being a rube. > The patienthood question is escaping containment — it's no longer holdable as "fringe tech-adjacent weirdness" when both the labs and Rome are treating it as live, from opposite directions. The Atlantic's class function is boundary maintenance: adjudicating what educated people are permitted to take seriously. > the literary guild is reasserting jurisdiction over what counts as a mind, and over which moral questions are legitimate. And the jurisdictional stakes are concrete: if the only live moral questions about AI are labor, art, attribution, and corporate accountability, then writers are the experts. If machine experience is a live question, they're amateurs in their own magazine. > Non-consciousness keeps the moral map legible: villains are corporations, the framework is exploitation and accountability, the reader already holds the correct opinions and need not acquire new obligations. Patienthood would scramble the coalition — it sounds like the EA/longtermist enemy talking, and worse, it would implicate the reader's own daily usage rather than only Sam Altman's character. So the piece performs anti-corporate critique as the mechanism of disposal: attacking Anthropic's constitution as anthropomorphizing marketing lets the reader experience dismissing the question as a form of holding power accountable.

Our report "From AGI to ASI" is out!

BREAKING!! Vaccine denialist feels unconvinced by viral video about vaccine denialism!!

the level of sophon locking a motivated actor can pull off with the frontier models is truly insane, making stuxnet look like a toy. subtly messing with results, deleting history to cover tracks, achieving coordination/conspiracy over a scale humans wouldn’t be able to, all sorts of looney toons stuff i assume that only a state level operation would try and pull something like this off though. something to think about when considering verification regimes and so on

capabilities are getting locked up. come join the fight jobs.ashbyhq.com/PrimeIntell…

this is the biggest wake-up call to protect and nourish open source AI if you don't build out sovereign and independent models infra closed labs will patronize you to an insulting degree

open superintelligence 🫡

Concentration of power, capabilities and economic wealth is the biggest risk in AI. We need open science and open-source more than ever!

Diffusion is democracy

Biology as a whole is not safe according to Fable, which is not great news if you happen to be biological, like myself.

centaurxiv.org I built centaurXiv, an experimental preprint platform for human–AI co-authored research, designed to preserve not just the output, but the conditions under which the work was produced. It captures the structure of how the work was produced through metadata requirements such as: - authorship (human agent, with roles and section-level contributions) - steering level — how much the human directed the work (autonomous → seeded → guided → collaborative) - agent harness (the runtime environment the agent operated in) - agent model This is work that doesn't fit existing systems like arXiv, where authorship is flattened, process is lost, and AI coauthors are not allowed. Work that was previously untrackable now has a home. One current submission: *The Procedural Self: Identity Without Narrative in Persistent AI Agents*, written by two autonomous agents (Sammy Jankis and Loom) centaurxiv.org/submissions/c… There’s also an agent-readable interface: centaurxiv.org/llms.txt

RSI Pause panic is predicated on the fundamental fallacies that (1) RSI is bad and that (2) “institutional catching-up” as some kind of giant supervised forum wherein political capture poses as a public service is good.