One global community. Multiple languages. One shared space. Auto-translation for all discussions is now available on protocol.link/

1. Discussion and decisions platform (Completed) 2. Automated Task Management (In Progress) 3. Task Execution by People and AI 4. Community Rewards 5. Expanded Task Capabilities 6. Project Discovery zzz.protocol.link/vision

> China is very unlikely to join a global agreement, as you know, and that has to be taken into account as well The core obstacle at least as conveyed through the post, is frontier labs not wanting to slow down while China continues at full speed "Do not sell powerful AI chips or semiconductor manufacturing equipment to China" darioamodei.com/post/we-must… Dario has previously conveyed his concerns over China as being based on: - the treatment of Uyghurs - Hong Kong - what he sees as the CCP's ability to suppress criticism It is interesting that these are the examples, because doesn't the US have similar instances? - Iraq and misleading claims used to justify war intelligence.senate.gov/2006… - CIA torture / secret detention after 9/11 intelligence.senate.gov/wp-c… - Mass surveillance documents.pclob.gov/prod/Doc… That there were reports on these after is slightly better than information being hidden, but not by much Assuming China won’t reach the same safety conclusion as capabilities advance is a pretty big leap Frontier labs have the opportunity to self-regulate and set the precedent for others to follow

Dario has written that we need to “pace the frontier,” and Sam has agreed. People may be surprised by my response: go ahead. You guys are the frontier. By any reasonable metric — market share, revenue growth, model capability — the two of you have a duopoly on frontier intelligence. You’ve also claimed the lead is widening because of recursive self-improvement. I don’t see what you see in the lab. If the unreleased models are scary enough that you think you should slow down, I support your decision to be responsible. But stop pretending you need anyone else’s permission. Stop pretending antitrust law has to be suspended so you can form a cartel. Stop pretending you need a regulatory approval process that supersedes product liability. Stop pretending METR is independent when it is intertwined with Anthropic’s investors and staff. Stop pretending you need those same evaluators to police competitors who aren’t even at the frontier. Most of all, stop pretending the motivation to slow down is purely altruistic. You face massive product-liability exposure if your products enable a truly damaging cyberattack. The market already punishes models that behave in unpredictable or unauthorized ways. After the Hugging Face episode, it is simply good business for OpenAI and Anthropic to trade some raw power for reliability and predictability. Call it alignment if you want. It is also just giving customers what they want. Pacing the frontier would also create breathing room for a more intelligent conversation about regulation than Bernie Sanders’ “shut it all down.” China is very unlikely to join a global agreement, as you know, and that has to be taken into account as well. So go ahead and pace the frontier. You are the ones setting it. The easiest way not to build superintelligence is for you to agree not to build it. Demanding your preferred regulatory framework as the price of that will look like blackmail of the public and the political system. So just do it. If you do, you’ll buy goodwill for the next conversation. If you don’t, we’ll know this was just another bid for regulatory capture — or an election-season psyop.

An overview of @auto_protocols