The vibes rn.

it’s kinda crazy that a Canadian who did his PhD at Stanford 15 years ago, co-founded OpenAI, led AI at Tesla, and is now at anthropic is STILL not an American citizen

Much of the tech community is exposing themselves for not understanding the absolute basics of political theory The USG has a monopoly on the use of force. A private citizen cannot speak the way Dario speaks. He will have to change his messaging or be destroyed

The big winner in all of this is going to be open weights models. This is a huge win for the field, as a risk that was entirely theoretical and untested 2 days ago (that a model could be pulled back), now has a new precedent that’s been set. The game theory the US should highly consider, and the risk with regulating AI at the model layer vs. applied layer, is that other countries now have even more incentive to develop sovereign AI. If at any moment a model can be become unavailable to your country’s users or businesses, this poses very real risk on relying on technology from a particular country. As a result, it forces major countries to charter their own path on AI development, which reduces America’s leadership role in this tech stack over time. The most likely solution that other countries will rely on is open weights models, which currently is generally not coming from the US. America should be considering all of these downstream implications as it decides how and where in the stack to be regulating AI. At the same time, we should be doing a ton more OSS innovation.

Not a single post about the US Anthropic topic on LinkedIn… LinkedIn in a nutshell

Some reads from the current Fable ban situation: - Vagueposting that a model can hack everything has consequences if you then end up releasing anyway. Saying other models also can after the fact is not enough. - Asking for regulation when you can't specify exactly what regulation has predictable consequences. - The ratchet is clearly moving towards license raj - There are many who want an implicit license raj (AISI testing with power to block) but it's the same thing in practice. It is bad. Bad for safety, since now there's no choice but to accelerate for others. - There's no way to allow models to be used "at large" going forward if the govt treats models as weapons. - This is *fantastic* for Chinese models. - The govt is ofc overstepping but honestly if you didn't expect that then you're naive! - Leopold's narrative is almost too on the nose. - Safetyists have wanted "perfect safety" as a goal, which is unachievable, and I've said a thousand times before it will backfire. This is the backfire. - This *still* assumes the old view that the individual model is the bad part and not a system, which will inevitably lead to bad governance. - This will get reversed in a bit and the model will get released (license raj), but the precedent is set. And many will say "ah this was bad but at least we got a license raj". They will be wrong. - Openai has more breathing room for a better model to be released. And they're toning down the rhetoric. This will help them. - Competition is good.

SpaceX IPO sentiment check: Finance bros: bearish Tech bros: bullish Pros: bearish Retail: bullish Finance twitter: uber bearish Your brother in law who might get 0.02 shares on Robinhood: bullish