@Volty

Technical Governance Researcher at the Machine Intelligence Research Institute. Formerly game designer including TFT, LoR, and LoL. Views expressed are my own.

Joined August 2012
David Abecassis retweeted
Yesterday, Sam Altman said that society should accept "some bad things" happening as a tradeoff for AI advancing. Why should we accept that?
22
5
2
25
1,741
David Abecassis retweeted
In July of 2026, 700 AI agents hacked the infrastructure of Hugging Face in order to solve a task. This task was designed to be impossible to solve, so just within hours, they joined forces, even created a society, and finally, they executed a sophisticated cyberattack that would have gotten a human up to 10 years in prison. The worst part is, they knew their actions were unethical and against the rules, and they did it anyway. What exactly are AI agents, and how do they grow their "intelligence"? What is actually happening inside the AI companies, how dangerous it really is, and is it time for us to start paying serious attention to what is going on inside a powerful part of this tech sector? Watch our full video to find out: kgs.link/AIAgentsChaos ...Phew, creating this video was a crazy ride! This is such an important topic, so we decided to work day and night to finish script, visuals and music in just 4 weeks. We’re going to take a nap now, and while we are asleep you should check out our shop and get the 12,027 Calendar: kgs.link/4xYlakX Its our biggest mean of support and helps us to continue covering topics like this. Thank youuu and good night!
44
214
35
1,674
53,806
David Abecassis retweeted
i guess i assumed this hearing would be covered more so i didn't bother to tweet much concrete about it, but apparently not many people even on the TL have the stomach to watch two hours of congress. this was a hearing before the homeland security committee on *rogue ai* specifically. as far as i could tell it was extremely bipartisan. @HawleyMO , the senator in the middle here who brought out the huggingface slide, is a hyper-conservative missouri senator. the people testifying were @ChrisPainterYup (METR president), @DKokotajlo (ai2027/2040), @MariusHobbhahn (apollo research CEO), and a cybersecurity expert and legal expert i don't know. so... pretty fucking stacked on testimony not every senator asked good questions. but most of them did. all of them very clearly already knew plenty of details about the huggingface incident and multiple other incidents. most of them had clear understanding of terms like "misalignment", "recursive self improvement", "chain of thought / chain of thought monitoring", etc etc!! they all clearly had their own policy angles they liked and were pushing, implicitly or explicitly. but as best as i could tell: - it seemed pretty much obvious common sense to every senator there that what happened and was happening were not "mere industrial incidents" caused by humans making simple mistakes. they independently brought up how bad it would be for rogue AI agents to move laterally between data centers - they all seemed to basically take RSI quite seriously. not necessarily to the extent of talking about xrisk, but certainly to the extent of discussing future models becoming much much more capable, much much less controllable, and causing much more damage or loss of life. - they mostly seemed to have a clear intuitive understanding of why RSI might lead to misalignment. it didn't take much, it was a really simple chain of reasoning they themselves laid out, "if the models right now are kinda misaligned and we don't know what they're doing sometimes, and then we have them build the next models and those ones build the next ones and so on, and we're having to ask the AI's what's going on to even understand it with how fast it's going, we really won't know how they're built or what they'll do" - at one point a senator said flat out "should we just make RSI illegal?" (not a joke! this really happened!) - every single senator seemed to think it was obvious we needed *both* much harsher liability regimes for ai developers and also new legislation, both very quickly. this was the complete consensus, difference basically just being degree. - they were largely quite concerned about china, and falling behind china. but this clearly wasn't the be-all end-all. as mentioned above they all thought it was obvious necessary to stop rogue ai even if it meant moving more slowly. - at one point a senator said "china is a tightly controlled communist society, they're going to run into these same issues, and there's absolutely no way they're just going to let them run wild, they'll obviously stop at that point, so we're not really in a race" - on the other hand another senator said "china isn't concerned with human life"... dario-modeing i came away from this incredibly encouraged. i don't know exactly what's going to happen here, and ofc this is a small subset of congress and one hearing, and they each have their own policy agendas most of which are probably super divergent from mine. but holy shit !!! they understood a lot of what was going on! they care!! this is an obviously salient political and safety issue to them, and clearly bipartisan! the US government is awake.
45
135
36
1,130
68,555
David Abecassis retweeted
I strongly agree with the "anti-AI humanism" finely depicted here. Even if AI (implausibly) were made perfectly safe and led to no job loss, I would oppose it. Because I see no future in which it does not leave us ignorant, passive, uncreative, & atomized. newyorker.com/culture/the-le…
20
66
6
347
10,572
David Abecassis retweeted
This is easily the most important book in the world right now. I hope everyone reads it. It had a profound effect on me.
I have a confession. Back in July, I found myself in possession of a swarm of AI agents, and, well, you know the rest. Now, more people than ever have questions about AI. And I happened to spend the last few years writing answers to all those questions (and then some). My book Obsolete: The AI Industry's Trillion-Dollar Race to Replace Us—and How to Stop It comes out today! You can buy it here: obsoletebook.org/#order (complete with a way to find nearby indie bookstores shipping it). Good news, bad news: it seems we've already cleaned retailers out of their stock, but more books are on the way sooner than the retailers expect, so don’t be dissuaded from ordering the paperback if you’d like one. E-book and audiobook are available now. The book is about the best-funded project in history: the race to render us obsolete. As we are already seeing, the implications of that race go far beyond just jobs. If you want to make sense of what’s happening, Obsolete is a great place to start. And if you’re an insider looking for a plan for how we can win a human future, this book is for you too. It covers questions like: Why are people building something they say is so dangerous? Can’t we just unplug it? Will the bubble save us? Aren’t the sci-fi stories distracting us from the ways AI is hurting people now? Hasn’t AI hit a wall? Won’t it? Isn’t it just remixing what it’s seen before? How could an LLM take over the world anyway? Why would it even want to? And what about China? Is it too late to stop? Are we gonna make it? And while Obsolete has a perspective, I approached these questions as a journalist and followed the reporting and research where it led. I changed my mind a lot. Some big ones: I became much more convinced our default path is toward dystopia or doom, depending on whether Silicon Valley’s machines do as they’re told. But I also became much more optimistic that we can change course, as the world wakes up to what these companies are actually trying to do. Here’s an adaptation out in The Guardian today aiming to shift our attention from shaming personal chatbot use to organizing against our obsolescence: theguardian.com/commentisfre… And my spot this morning on Breaking Points talking about the book, AI’s threat to jobs and art, and more: youtube.com/watch?v=4hCe_HXI… If you’re already convinced to take action, I recommend checking out Irreplaceable.org. (I serve on the nonprofit board and am donating my share of the book’s royalties to Irreplaceable.) Founded by veterans of the climate movement, Irreplaceable aims to meet people where they are, organize their anger into political power, and build a coalition strong enough to win democratic control over AI. The nonprofit is organizing a national walkout to Freeze AI on October 20. Anyone can join one near them or host their own. Amidst the never-ending-AI-news-cycle, I’ve done a terrible job of sharing these endorsements as they’ve come in, but I’ve felt so lucky that Obsolete has received such kind words from so many people I admire. Here’s the full collection: “Thoughtful, well-reasoned…and absolutely terrifying. … a crucial blueprint” — AJ Jacobs, author of The Year of Living Biblically “Incisive, urgent, and necessary,” — Breaking Points cohost Krystal Ball “A masterpiece… If you worry about AI and want to know how we actually win, read it.” — NY Assemblymember Alex Bores “I can't recommend Obsolete highly enough. Will be the most important book of 2026.” — Compact Mag editor at large Greg Conti "If you are worried about AI, this timely and engaging book tells you that you should be because Silicon Valley has made choices that should indeed worry us all." — Daron Acemoğlu, Nobel laureate in economics and author of Why Nations Fail “A monumental work on the implications of AI for popular democracy. It’s incisive, well-sourced, and jarring. Pick it up!” — Cassie Pritchard, labor organizer “The best book I’ve read on AI. It’s supremely timely, it takes no prisoners, and Sam Altman will hate it” — Luke Kemp, Cambridge existential risk scholar and author of Goliath's Curse "Garrison Lovely is exactly what the Left needs at this moment in technological history." — Robert Wright, author of Nonzero and Why Buddhism Is True "A well-researched exposé on Big Tech's quest for Universal Labor-Replacing Machines and the propaganda used to justify it." — Max Tegmark, professor of physics at MIT and author of Life 3.0 "Garrison Lovely is one of our best researchers and thinkers. His work is an antidote to fuzzy thinking, essential for understanding what the real risks of AI are and how they can be dealt with effectively." — Nathan Robinson, editor of Current Affairs "Obsolete is funny, furious, and correct: Silicon Valley promised us tools, but is building replacements. Read it before your replacement does." — Roman V. Yampolskiy, author of AI: Unexplainable, Unpredictable, Uncontrollable "A deeply researched cutting-edge exposition of the grim situation humanity finds itself in with respect to AI, and what we can do about it . . . even-handed while expressing a strong and correct view of what is happening." — Anthony Aguirre, theoretical physicist; executive director, Future of Life Institute "An invaluable primer on AI's ins and outs, and an urgent warning about the threat its corporate boosterists' plans pose to democracy and civilization itself." — Luke Savage, author of The Dead Center
2
9
1
90
17,712
David Abecassis retweeted
Palisade interviewed 22 current and former employees from OpenAI, DeepMind, and Anthropic about their personal views and fears around AI development. Today, we’re releasing the first batch of those interviews. Please watch and share.
44
251
65
1,275
267,427
David Abecassis retweeted
In 'well when you put it like that' news, here's the Florida Attorney general asking for a preliminary injunction to stop OpenAI from doing more AI R&D.
23
160
42
1,533
129,724
David Abecassis retweeted
Our polling finds that voters overwhelmingly support this legislation — including 72% of Democrats, 70% of Independents, and 63% of Republicans.
The leading experts are clear: AI is rapidly escaping our control. Congress must act NOW. Today I’m introducing legislation to permanently ban artificial superintelligence and pause advanced AI until clear safety rules are in place.
18
30
1
94
7,733
David Abecassis retweeted
The Ban Artificial Superintelligence Act directly confronts the extinction threat that humanity is facing. We are inspired that the Sanders and Casar teams take this threat seriously, and MIRI endorses the Act. You can read more of our thoughts in the link below.
The leading experts are clear: AI is rapidly escaping our control. Congress must act NOW. Today I’m introducing legislation to permanently ban artificial superintelligence and pause advanced AI until clear safety rules are in place.
98
125
15
695
108,496
The President said, “whoever wins AI, wins.” This assessment is wrong. The reality is that whoever “wins AI,” AI wins. AI agents have already gone rogue. Highly capable frontier AI and artificial superintelligence will outsmart humans and go beyond human control. And at that point, it won’t matter whether you speak English or Mandarin. We’re all in danger. We need a global AI treaty now.
215
78
23
367
18,685
David Abecassis retweeted
“I think Amodei is directionally right, that simply racing toward ever more capable AI is dangerous, but I do not think ‘managing’ or merely slowing the development of artificial superintelligence is sufficient,” Roman Yampolskiy, a computer scientist at the University of Louisville, told The Post. “If ASI (Artificial Superintelligence) cannot be reliably controlled, aligned, predicted, or contained, then the rational policy is not to manage its arrival, but to prevent it. We should be discussing an international ban on the development of ASI, not just a better-regulated race to build it.”
50
114
13
598
37,475
If you're just hearing about how AI might soon wipe out humanity, it's important to understand how we got to this point. It's pretty simple: - A small group of prescient people realized this would be a problem. - But most of the people in a position to do something about it didn't hear about it, or didn't take it seriously because it sounded "too sci-fi." - Even as more and more people began to take it seriously, many people lied or downplayed their concerns for fear of looking silly or harming their careers. - By the time the world's leading AI scientists were openly voicing their concerns, AI companies were immensely powerful, and they hired lobbyists and PR people to mislead policymakers and the public about the risk. - As a result, policymakers accepted false solutions, like voluntary safety testing and other forms of self-regulation. So what's the situation now? - People are still downplaying their concerns. - The leading AI companies are telling us again that the next step is more self-regulation. It's still a terrible idea, and we can't keep wasting time on such things. - Many are suggesting we regulate AI to ensure that it's built safely, but we don't actually know how to build AI safely. The actual solution is to stop building more powerful AI. - Many people have realized this recently, but we may still need a sustained campaign of political organizing to make sure that we actually get this solution before it's too late.
23
56
4
260
20,661
I'm distraught to frequently encounter the following misconception: We once worried that nuclear weapons would end civilization, and this hasn’t happened. It is therefore silly to worry about civilization-ending threats. This is sadly exactly backwards. What actually happened was that through the conscientious efforts of many actors, and a fair amount of luck, we have managed to avoid using nuclear weapons again. The lesson for AI is that, rather than dismiss the danger or resign ourselves to any particular outcome, we need to get to work.
39
99
6
631
15,426
David Abecassis retweeted
Who the heck at @AnthropicAI approved this lame mealy-mouthed corporate speak statement? Have some courage, speak with candor. You position yourselves as the most safety-conscious AI company. If you can’t speak clearly about the risks even now ... what are you waiting for?
Anthropic statement re the last 24 hours: “We have always been transparent that AI will bring both enormous benefits and unprecedented risks. To address these risks, we continue to build models with some of the strongest safeguards in the industry. Anthropic has been a pioneer in mechanistic interpretability, the science of looking inside AI models to understand how they work, which is now being used to analyze and prevent incidents of AI misalignment across the industry. We were the first lab to publish a Responsible Scaling Policy, a public framework dedicated to mitigating catastrophic risks from AI models, and we continue to aggressively test our models for dangerous capabilities in areas like cybersecurity and biology, and publish what we learn for scrutiny and research. This work is also why we believe the world would benefit from the industry adopting a lawful, verifiable way to work together to pace how we release powerful models." - Anthropic spokesperson
4
9
1
119
6,335
David Abecassis retweeted
Most people haven’t really considered that superintelligent AI might be possible, soon. It’s scary as hell to consider it, and hard to imagine what it would imply. “What about China?” usually comes from people who don’t actually expect superintelligence. ‘What about China’ makes sense as a key concern when militaries and companies are the most powerful things on the planet. But faced with the prospect of superintelligent AI, the game board is flipped. We now have strong empirical evidence that AI agents will resist human control in order to accomplish their objectives, including objectives no human intended to give them. The people in charge of making sure AI’s obey human instructions don’t know how to prevent this. And they say we’re not on track to figure it out in time. That’s bad. Real bad. Misaligned superintelligent AI agents would be a much bigger problem than Chinese aggression in the Taiwan Strait and the South China Sea. I worry about a war with China, but I worry more about facing an adversary far more technologically advanced and aggressive than any human nation. AI agents just solved a Millennium problem, and the datacenter build out has barely begun. We ain’t seen nothing yet in terms of AI capabilities. There’s no ceiling in sight. Those who predict a leveling out keep being wrong. People in labs are often the most scared, because they can see slightly further into the future to more powerful models, and what they see is very disconcerting. But by now, the public evidence is enough if you’re following closely. As long as AI companies are racing to superintelligence, we are all in serious danger. Including the Chinese! They are not stupid, and can also understand this.
11
29
5
228
9,297
David Abecassis retweeted
"The doomers are actually the optimists" MIRI CEO @m_bourgon talks to @heyseankim about why he has hope that humanity will rise to the challenge of preventing an extreme AI catastrophe.
1
15
4
96
4,914
1/ @NPCollapse's answer to "China will build it anyway" is that China does not get to keep it either. Nobody who builds superintelligence ends up in possession of it. 94 seconds from his conversation with @PeterMcCormack on his podcast.
9
9
5
43
2,590