I help digitize companies around customer needs. Dad, AI & ML lead, Coder, & Drone Enthusiast. Founder StoryBridge SEL. Views are my own.
Wisconsin, USA
Joined May 2008
- Tweets2.9K
- Following1.9K
- Followers768
- Likes1.4K
Pre Priyadarshane retweeted
The group behind such hits as: “We’re All Going To Die” and “Regulate Me Now” are building a wet lab in SF.
I do not recommend this.
ANTHROPIC BUILDS BIOLOGY LAB TO PUSH AI INTO DRUG DEVELOPMENT
Anthropic has quietly established a Bay Area wet lab, moving its life-sciences ambitions beyond computer simulations and into physical biological experiments.
The company wants Claude to direct laboratory robots with limited human intervention, potentially accelerating research into rare and traditionally “undruggable” diseases.
Anthropic says it will focus on preclinical research rather than clinical trials, avoiding direct competition with pharmaceutical companies.
Pre Priyadarshane retweeted
When Microsoft "paused" Windows, Office, and Server to fix bugs that made viruses possible people were surprised and then relieved because they knew we could fix bugs and make the products better. We too were working 18 hour days to add features (aka potential vulnerabilities.) Wall Street worried a lot but then decided security was a good idea.
But we took this as our responsibility. We did not appeal to Congress to make us "pause" or to get the other companies to pause first.
Grow up. Add logging, checking, debugging, and more to your products. It needs it.
Pre Priyadarshane retweeted
Our framework for reporting model misalignment openai.com/index/model-misal… // if you scrape away all the anthropomorphic language, all the nonsense about thinking, cheating, communicating these are BUGS. They might be architectural flaws inherent in LLMs. They might be bugs in pre or post processing. They might be trivial fixes or super to impossibly difficult.
BUT THEY ARE BUGS. They are not consciousness, thinking/reasoning, cheating, or doing anything else like a person. The software is just doing dumb stuff it should not do.
If an old school SQL query-based report returned a NULL set but still printed the report with whatever was left over in the buffer we would not say it "ignored our instructions to produce a valid report" which is literally implied in every computer interaction...we would say it "f'ed up and there's a bug."
One of these is ridiculous. It says "agent preparing a financial model could not find the requested historical data. Its summary proposed inventing reasonable historical values and withholding that fact unless asked." Not unlike a report that just used random cached memory instead of actual data—a real bug from another era where storage was measured in megabytes.
I ask anyone who has ever experienced an hallucination, (a) did you ask it "oh hey don't make sh*t up" or (b) "if you make sh*t up please be sure to tell me" or if not, did any model ever tell you "here's the answer and FYI I made this up." Of course not.
THESE ARE BUGS. THE SOFTWARE ISN'T WORKING.
Just because it looks like it works, or it showers the results in endless obsequious and smart-sounding language, or because it has really bad error reporting doesn't mean it is acting like some malevolent shady actor. It is acting like broken software.
Every recalc bug in Excel looked like Excel worked. We never thought once that it was Excel's fault for "choosing to interpret math incorrectly." Every data-loss bug in Word was not because Word "chose not to tell the author that a file was corrupt" but it was because Word wasn't working and it was our fault. When Windows hung it was not because the scheduler was secretly conspiring against its instructions to schedule processes fairly.
Enough with the mumbo jumbo. Please build software. It isn't a magic show. This is engineering.
Pre Priyadarshane retweeted
As the first publicly disclosed agent cyberattack victim, we've had a front-row seat to this new risk. I formalized my thinking about it below.
I'll be in DC tomorrow to share more with policymakers and at decoded summit by @politico!
Pre Priyadarshane retweeted
Major setback for anthropic: Nvidia, Palantir and Booz Allen are reportedly restricting Anthropic’s Fable over concerns about retaining sensitive corporate data.
The Information reports that Anthropic introduced rolling 30-day usage logs for safety monitoring in June. Its planned option for eligible customers to store logs themselves can still be revoked.
Palantir is even withholding Fable from its platform until it gets irrevocable zero-data-retention guarantees. Nvidia limits Fable to less sensitive work and uses Nemotron for sensitive internal projects. Booz Allen excludes Fable from work involving its proprietary cybersecurity software.
It's especially bad for the IPO if large business and enterprise customers have such concerns and no longer use the best model.
Pre Priyadarshane retweeted
One of the greatest ironies in the age of AI is China being the voice of reason and calling for AI to remain “open and inclusive,” while the land of the free, the USA, uses fearmongering to control, shut down access to intelligence, and keep AI closed and non-inclusive.
🇨🇳 Beijing is telling the AI panic crowd to calm down.
China’s Foreign Ministry says AI should remain “open and inclusive,” warning that fearmongering, confrontation and “vicious competition” will only derail global AI governance.
There’s clearly no appetite for slowing the race just because others are getting nervous.
Writer: Julie
Pre Priyadarshane retweeted
AI folks who live in the discrete world of bits and tokens don't always understand how incredibly messy the real world is.
Well, I’d add one more with myself, as one with a PhD in biology and another PhD in AI and now working in both, to make n=2. Generating a hypothetical genome blueprint of a virus from LLM versus generating a true virus are completely different things. It is either an intentional attention-harnessing lie or true ignorance. The material, the manufacturing, and actual biological viability of paper-to-physical transformation is the gap you need to close. Like drawing a design of a chip or A-bomb, versus actually make one.
You have, and can add more checkpoints and guardrails all over this long chain of paper to physical transformation. Fear mongering is not well founded, and mostly emotional manipulation.
Pre Priyadarshane retweeted
One of the greatest intellectual dishonesties of the AI age is assigning an “X% chance” that AI will kill everyone and presenting that number as science!
10%? 20%? 50%?
Show me the damn data! Show me the model. Show how you calculated it!
Instead, we get chains of speculative assumptions and science-fiction scenarios, including implausible claims about engineered pandemics. I have worked with viruses for decades; biology does not work like a doomsday screenplay.
The burden of proof belongs to the person making the extraordinary claim. Nobody else has to prove the probability is zero.
If I claimed there was a 10% chance aliens would arrive within ten years and destroy Earth, you would ask where the 10% came from.
Possibility and probability are not the same thing. It may be possible that there are million intelligent civilization in our galaxy or none, there is no probability you can assign to that without making wild assumptions.
Ask the same of AI extinction.
A subjective fear does neither become science because you attach a percentage to it nor make you a credible expert!
Pre Priyadarshane retweeted
Let's all take a moment to understand how self-serving it is for OpenAI, Anthropic and other execs of big hyperscalers to talk of slowing things down.
1. LLMs are not AI and won't be AGI. There is nothing AI to slow down.
2. Competition is coming up fast, slowing benefits incumbents.
3. IPOs need hype & puffery; "we are so awesome it could become dangerous" is hype & puffery
4. Cover for real uncontrollable slowing growth as IPOs look to be pushed out
i thought about this quite a bit. is there something that we the “outsiders” don’t see that’s happening within the frontier labs—rather companies.
there are some thoughtful points in his essay. but many extremely narrow arguments that inherently make suggested frameworks impractical.
if you believe Chinese AI leadership would pose a grave danger to the United States and that China may not honor meaningful pacing agreements, what evidence gives you confidence that U.S. regulation will and other restrictions slow Chinese development?
Dario’s statement “China obtaining AI superiority might result in military dominance through “AI-driven drones” makes me think of a rather uncomfortable historical echo.
US imposed regulatory governance on an emerging technology (drones) while China simultaneously used policy, manufacturing scale and rapid commercialization to compound its advantage. We should be extremely careful about repeating that with AI.
While it will be advantageous for @AnthropicAI and @OpenAI to ask for regulatory capture and hope that such regulation will hinder adoption of open source Chinese models from the US, historically we can see that anytime government oversight is involved, progress slows ~
We Must Pace the Frontier: I’ve written a new essay on why the AI industry should slow down, with a three-part plan for doing so.
Anthropic is unilaterally committing to the first of these steps. We’ll provide third-party evaluators with permanent, employee-level access to our systems, so that they can verify adherence to our safety measures, report on incidents, and assess models’ alignment during training.
You can read the full post here: darioamodei.com/post/we-must…
Pre Priyadarshane retweeted
I believe everyone should have access to superintelligence, and I wrote a long piece about Meta's philosophy and values for building a positive future for everyone. meta.com/thefutureisforevery…
Pre Priyadarshane retweeted
Exactly.
The "escapes" were made possible either through egregious negligence or deliberate purpose (marketing? Misplaced hopes of regulatory capture?).
Pre Priyadarshane retweeted
I must be among an extremely small group of people (n=1?) that have both 1) trained a frontier LLM and 2) designed and synthesized custom viruses in a lab with my own two hands.
And I think that the takes on AI killing us all by creating dangerous viruses is total bogus.
Pre Priyadarshane retweeted
Any pursuit of superintelligence has to be grounded in the core principle that if the AI we build is not helping humanity and under human control, it's not worth pursuing.
We also need to accelerate and spread the benefits of AI, such that they are diffused broadly across countries, communities, and companies. This requires a frontier ecosystem in which both closed and open-source models can thrive.
And for firms, it’s imperative that they retain full control over their unique and tacit knowledge. Every organization should be able to build its own continuous learning loop/hill climbing machine, without becoming dependent on any one model provider, and have the ability to embed its own knowledge into models and weights they control.
So, in this context, we welcome the research, focus, and deliberate pacing needed to get alignment right as the design goal. We also welcome ideas like "embedded evaluators" and the broader efforts to develop the mechanisms to make this more than just talk.
The key is that this cannot be controlled by a handful of entities, but must have broad representation across the ecosystem, countries, and fields, including academia.
This is the approach we are taking: broad access and choice at every layer of the AI stack; enterprise control of learning loops and models; and the “Code of Conduct” that underlies our own first party MAI models that we’ll publish tomorrow for public consultation.
yes, i believe it’s a choice where and how to focus your efforts and compute now
Alignment is fundamental to delivering personal superintelligence for everyone. People need agents they can trust to reliably do what they ask. MSL is rapidly scaling up the share of our efforts that goes into alignment as our models become more powerful. We do believe alignment can be the gating factor for scaling as we get closer to the frontier.
Pre Priyadarshane retweeted
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.
All of this because @openai decided they would EXPLICITLY ask thousands of software instances to find security bugs on the open web — while cos-playing a humans🤦
Best Supporting actor goes to @dwarkesh_sp for his soap opera recap of OpenAI’s hacking speed run
Here’s another concept: don’t create and scale thousands of viruses and worms and be SHOCKED when they actually cause damage!
What a fucking farce this is.
We Must Pace the Frontier: I’ve written a new essay on why the AI industry should slow down, with a three-part plan for doing so.
Anthropic is unilaterally committing to the first of these steps. We’ll provide third-party evaluators with permanent, employee-level access to our systems, so that they can verify adherence to our safety measures, report on incidents, and assess models’ alignment during training.
You can read the full post here: darioamodei.com/post/we-must…