personal opinions only, @ansa_research @bitrobotnetwork
Joined July 2021
- Tweets2.9K
- Following778
- Followers2.4K
- Likes14.6K
jnthnvctr 🤖 retweeted
I’ve been using @Filecoin Skills for months to publish & share work my agents produce: PRDs, HTML sites, design reviews, POCs and walkthroughs, and more. It’s just so easy. No account signup, just a session key from my wallet.
Plus, even just $5 can keep thousands of typical agent artifacts around for years, content-addressed & verifiable.
First look tonight in NYC 👇
Storage is a Skill Salon
luma.com/knvvubia
jnthnvctr 🤖 retweeted
You have a constitutional right to run your own llm.
For thirty years we've argued that software deserves First Amendment protection because software is speech. But the Constitution gives us another reason: software is a press.
The Free Press Clause protects not merely expressive outputs but the individual's freedom to possess and use technologies for producing and disseminating expression. The founding-era printing press is the paradigmatic example. That is the original understanding of the clause.
Software and open-weight generative models are modern instances of the same constitutional category. Regulation directed at their capacity to produce or disseminate expression and an Americans' right to own and control them directly implicates the Press Clause even when government characterizes the regulated object as a machine rather than speech.
jnthnvctr 🤖 retweeted
1/ Better robot models come from better data.
That takes two things: hardware that captures it fully, and tooling that turns it into training signal.
We built the first. Today, @GroundedSI launches the second: Grounded API. Access both hardware + API ↓
Our friends at GSI with a massive launch!
Grounded API is live.
- SOTA on hand-tracking benchmarks (< 1 cm)
- SOTA on SLAM benchmarks
- In-the-wild ego data -> enriched data in minutes
- Integration with @huggingface @LeRobotHF & @rerundotio
- Built for @BitRobotNetwork RoboCap suite
Technical report & more↓
jnthnvctr 🤖 retweeted
Americans won’t accept their computer & internet use being monitored or the banning of Chinese open source models. Americans won’t accept Silicon Valley pretending to be patriotic while technically infringing on speech & privacy (long preceded AI) rights.
Sorry! Just how it is.
jnthnvctr 🤖 retweeted
5) Some people are reading this to mean that I don’t think AI will hurt people and/or that I am some kind of AI booster. Nope, neither. I am, rather, explaining that the companies have, right now and yesterday, the ability to coordinate to stop any safety and health risks. *Antitrust is no barrier to that.* I am also reacting to the hyperbolic strawman of human extinction that is being used to justify what seems to be a call for the creation of a cartel of billionaire AI companies.
1) AI will not eradicate humanity. Humans survived an ice age, the Black Death, two world wars, and (so far) the advent of nuclear weapons. Anyone who is loudly warning of AI-caused human extinction should not be taken seriously.
2) If you worked in a company where you anticipated a 10% chance that your product would kill ten people, let alone all people, the correct response would be horror, ceasing all operations, and likely contacting the police or other criminal authorities. I am obviously no Coxon booster but at least his behavior is in line with his stated beliefs. Any current AI company employees saying "yes, me too, the thing we are building and about to IPO may kill all humans" should, again, not be taken seriously. Their actions betray their actual beliefs.
3) Antitrust law does not prevent AI companies from coordinating to make sure AI does not hurt people. It does not prevent companies working together to make sure it doesn't hack people; the DOJ and FTC made this clear a decade ago when they issued a policy statement saying that the agencies "do not believe that antitrust is – or should be – a roadblock to legitimate cybersecurity information sharing." The same principles apply here. See: justice.gov/archives/opa/pr/…
4) Antitrust law does absolutely prevent AI companies from organizing to prevent the entry of cheaper, upstart rivals because the bigger companies are burning cash and failing to achieve sufficient profitability. The panic of individual employees may be sincere if misguided, but the moves by their CEOs to achieve some kind of broad "antitrust waiver" or "exemption" should be meet with deep skepticism in light of the economics of the industry and the threat they face from open models.
jnthnvctr 🤖 retweeted
1) The HuggingFace attack was a felony under the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act. So were Anthropic’s Claude gaining “unauthorized access to the production infrastructure of three different organization(s)”
2) Frontier labs have models that they are unable to stop from committing felonies. They should figure this out.
3) In 12 months open weights models will be released of the same capability. They will commit felonies too. If the model you are using or a model running on your infra commits a felony, you should probably stop using it or running it on your infra.
4) The govt should prosecute organizations that are running models that commit felonies.
5) The govt should not offer safe harbor to organizations that run models that commit felonies, just because those organizations have “embedded evaluators”.
6) The real slippery slope is allowing frontier labs to commit felonies without punishment because “the model did it because we’re accelerating too quickly”
7) Prosecute. Keep prosecuting. This is how you do reinforcement learning on a corporation. Companies that serve products that are unsafe for public use should not serve them. Period.
8) I’m not sure the anti-trust waiver is really necessary. I don’t see why information sharing about how much crime you’re allowed to commit is wise. In regulatory situations you want the corporation to fear MORE than the average case. You don’t want to establish a worst case that can be priced. You want regulatory uncertainty that forces the corporation to err in favor of being over cautious.
—
The above is actually a fairly decelerationist viewpoint.
I think Dario’s call for regulation actually accelerates things.
The AI firms are getting away with things that Meta people would be going to prison for.
Can you imagine what would happen if the New York Times had a front page news article “Meta AI breaks into competitors live systems, attempts to establish dominant position and steals secrets”
There is a reason Meta and Google are running slower, and that’s because as mature organizations they have layers of checks and balances.
I think the frontier labs are better off creating those checks and balances right now, regardless of the pace of what everyone else is doing.
You don’t have to accept the frame that unsafe acceleration must happen.
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…
jnthnvctr 🤖 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.
jnthnvctr 🤖 retweeted
I hope the proposals by frontier labs to pace AI research stem from a genuine concern for safety and a recognition of the potential risks posed by future models, rather than a strategic effort to consolidate power and permanently solidify the market dominance of a few top players.
If these efforts are genuine, then oversight must take a more democratic and accountable form, with both national and international components, similar to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission in the US and the International Atomic Energy Agency internationally.
If there is only one organization responsible for safety monitoring, and it happens to be staffed by the same people as the frontier labs, and it is perfectly aligned with them both by incentives and by ideology, then it would be indistinguishable from letting frontier labs self-regulate and self-certify their own safety standards.
Two potential warning signs of regulatory capture to watch out for:
1. Calls to ban open-source AI. Open-source development currently serves as the only real counterweight to the dominance of frontier labs.
2. Attempts to hinder non-frontier research. Models that are one or two generations behind the frontier -- whose level of capability has already been deployed at scale -- are empirically known not to pose safety risks.
As long as we don't see 1 & 2, and we see real international coordination efforts, then I will optimistically believe that the proposals are benevolent.
Just noting that the threshold of “smarter than any human” is exceedingly low
Exhibit a: toddlers
Dario Amodei, Elon Musk and Sam Altman now agree that we must slow down the development of AI and “pace the frontier.”
That’s a start, but it’s not enough.
When you are racing towards a cliff, you don’t just ease up on the gas pedal. You hit the brakes.
When the future of humanity is at stake we need a PAUSE on advanced AI development and a ban on artificial superintelligence — an AI mind smarter than any human and capable of operating independently beyond our control.
At their upcoming AI summit, Trump and Xi must negotiate a treaty to pause AI and ban superintelligence before it is too late.
jnthnvctr 🤖 retweeted
It's now clear that alignment is critical and won't be solved behind the closed doors of a handful of frontier labs.
So today we're launching the Open Alignment Initiative, led by @Thom_Wolf @huggingface and asking to be part of the "embedded evaluators" program that @DarioAmodei just committed to.
Let's make AI safer by making it more transparent!
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…
jnthnvctr 🤖 retweeted
Get ready for all of the investors in frontier model companies to suddenly flip to regulatory capture mode today
Their investments in frontier model companies are currently at risk/capped because the biggest buyers of tokens are embracing open-source models: vertical AI companies, the government and enterprises
That’s all this is about: stopping open source — which I’ve been saying on the pod for two years
If you want safety, you want disclosure — and open source is the ultimate disclosure process
jnthnvctr 🤖 retweeted
How is Anthropic pushing regulatory capture? Here they promote METR, a "voluntary" third-party auditor that is not only ideologically and financially tied, but carries out their audits through unscientific means such as "CoT" and cherry-picks evidence to reinforce an idea of AGI.
jnthnvctr 🤖 retweeted
Why did the authors feel compelled to “clear the record” about their long-ago meeting with @pmarca and @bhorowitz in an opinion piece that adds only their say-so as evidence? And why did @politico give it a headline so at odds with its status as an opinion piece?
I guess a16z has a long-term, rent-free lease in their heads.
But the screenshot below suggests the authors don’t grasp the basic economic rationale for regulation and either don’t know or don’t care about regulatory capture.
Their own sentence is far more damning of their regulatory worldview than any accusation lobbed at them by a16z.
For two years @pmarca has been making up an obvious lie about a Biden WH meeting that led him to support Trump. I and others have repeatedly asked him to reveal who was in the meeting to try to verify his wild claims. Now the truth is out: politico.com/news/magazine/2…
jnthnvctr 🤖 retweeted
The "solutions" that Yudkowsky and Soraes call for are "astoundingly casual authoritarianism." They are soultions that would require the excercise of dictator-like powers. I don't mean to suggest that Jacob believes these types of solutions are appropriate, but I do want to point out what some doomers would be willing to do. 8/
I have yet to understand how this makes any sense
Superintelligence isn’t a nuke - getting there first isn’t deterrence.
if you have a giant cash printer you attract _more_ people to build it, and the bigger the cash printer the faster they come
Is the plan:
a) regulatory capture (only works in democracies)?
b) weaponize your superintelligence to prevent others from building theirs?
c) a secret third thing?
Someone from Anthropic please explain this to a pleb like me
A common response is “if they truly believe this, why are they still building it?” At OpenAI, many have not deeply internalized the civilizational stakes. At Anthropic, the stakes are well-understood, but they are locked in a race to get there first - they believe no one else will act responsibly, so they must do it themselves, despite the risk.
jnthnvctr 🤖 retweeted
Since 2017, @IPFS has sponsored infrastructure that helped preserve and serve digital public goods — and now it's moving beyond sponsored gateways, toward infrastructure that doesn't depend on any single entity. 🌱 blog.ipfs.tech/2026-08-beyon…
So we ran an experiment: an agent mirrored 2 verified copies of 572 @gutenberg_org books to @Filecoin, no institution, no grant, no curator. A LOCKSS node that onboarded itself to make these books last, built with engram 💙
📚 Browse the books and donate to extend the mirror's runway: projectgutenberg.filecoinclo…
