It's time to slow down frontier AI

development. At least according to the

employees at these frontier AI labs. For

once, OpenAI, Deep Seek, Anthropic, and

more all seem to agree. And that's why

they just put out this shared statement,

"Pacing the Frontier." This is a

statement from over a thousand employees

of all the frontier AI companies, and I

mean all of them. Even less frontier

things like DeepMind and Meta, but the

obvious frontiers like Anthropic and

OpenAI. Dario himself is in here. They

got a ton of people in this. This is a

pretty bold statement. I don't think

there's ever in history been a time that

a whole industry category came out

against the development of their own

industry category quite like this. And

having thousands of people from all of

these companies agree that it's time to

slow down is concerning, to put it

lightly.

What's even crazier is that both

Anthropic and OpenAI on their official

comms accounts have come out in support

of this article. It's rare that a single

statement gets this type of support and

attention from so many competing forces,

and that the point of the statement is

to slow down the work that they are

doing. So, what's going on here? Are

these labs trying to trick other

companies into agreeing so that they can

speed ahead of them? Are they trying to

pull the ladder up so no other companies

can catch up? Is this some secret plot

by Anthropic to kill open weight models

after that open weight letter? There's

layers to this one, and I have some

conspiracies alongside it. I will do my

best to break all of that down, what the

statement is, why all of these companies

are agreeing to it, why this is

happening now, which is really

important, as well as some light and

then heavy conspirizing around why I

think this is actually happening.

Because as per usual, nothing is quite

as simple as it seems from the first

read. Before we can pace the frontier,

we need to pace this video a bit better

with a quick break for today's sponsor.

I got a hot take for you. It's more

important than ever to actually

understand the code going into your code

base. But in In world where the average

PR is getting bigger and bigger and the

number of PRs is growing massively, it's

really hard to keep track of what's

actually going on in your code base. I

feel like I'm losing touch constantly,

but I got a hot take for you. This isn't

your fault and it's not even the AI's

fault. It's the structure of GitHub

itself. Now that pull requests are

getting their descriptions and their

code written by AI, all of the comments

and reviews being done by AI, it's just

hard to know what's going on. And a

giant alphabetically listed pile of code

is not going to help at all. And this is

why I've been loving today's sponsor

Code Rabbit. You might be confused

because isn't that just doing the

reviews and keeping me from

understanding? Yeah, kind of, but their

new Change Stack product flips this on

its head because they finally made a UI

that's usable for getting through code

review. It starts with the overview

which gives you all of the details of

what's going on with this PR as well as

what is its current state and what is

blocking it. If things change over time,

it's easy to see because they have this

fancy little timeline that shows you all

of the changes that have occurred over

the history of this pull request. But

most importantly is the stack itself

where they break up the PR into

individual chunks that pull together

pieces across the different files that

are changed to make it way easier to

review and understand the code. It's

time to understand your code again. Do

it today at site.link/coderabbit.

So, let's start with the official

statement and then the statements from

the major labs as well as some of the

official comments from people who have

contributed and then we will go into my

crazy conspirizing as to what I actually

think is going on. So, here is the

official statement. AI could help create

a dramatically better future, but that

outcome is not guaranteed. The world's

leading AI companies believe they could

be close to automating AI research. It

is hard to predict exactly how much this

will accelerate AI progress, but there

is a real risk that capability

development rapidly accelerates beyond

our ability to understand or control the

resulting systems. To realize AI's

potential, industry, government, and

society at large may need to the option

to buy time to address emerging risks,

develop security measures, and

strengthen oversight. But each company

{m-dash} and country, {m-dash} is under

intense competitive pressure not to

unilaterally slow that acceleration. And

today, the world lacks the technical and

governance tools to deliberately pace

frontier-wide progress. Building on work

already underway to monitor frontier

model releases, we request that the US

government support an international

effort to develop the technical and

governance tools needed to deliberately

pace the frontier of automated AI

development. Oh boy.

This is the core statement at the end

here. The request that the government

create this international set of tools

in order to prevent all AI development

from going too far. Almost similar to

nuclear weapon development. Where it

doesn't matter if every country but one

agrees, if one country ignores the rules

and goes way further. And it's a lot

harder to hide nuclear development than

it is to hide AI development. Although

you do need something to power it, which

is probably going to be nuclear if

you're hiding it. You get the idea

though. It's not trivial. If you read

this and feel as though these employees

are starting to get paranoid, it's a

pretty good read. And I will share why I

think that happened in just a moment.

But first, I want to read some of the

official comments from the folks who

have contributed. Dawn Song, who is VP

of AI research at Meta, has said the

following. "Frontier AI capabilities are

advancing rapidly, and the pace of

progress is itself accelerating. We see

this directly in our eval work. Cyber

gym and X plate gym show that frontier

AI agents are now capable of discovering

and exploiting real-world software

vulnerabilities, which without

appropriate safeguards could enable

cyber attacks at scale. Many researchers

also consider recursive self-improvement

plausible within the next few years,

accelerating progress in a way that

could outpace our ability to understand

and govern these systems." This is

specifically calling out the fact that

models are getting to the point where

they can improve themselves. And if they

can get good enough at that, they'll

just improve themselves in a loop, and

we won't understand anything ever again

going forward. If you've already felt

yourself making code bases more and more

complex to the point where you don't

understand them, imagine what happens

when the models are the same.

Deliberate pacing is a heavy-handed and

potentially extreme measure and we may

never need it, but if we do, it cannot

be safely invented in the middle of a

crisis. It is very difficult to design

well and if done poorly, it could do

more harm than good. I agree with all of

this so far. Any successful coordination

framework must be evidence-based

avoiding arbitrary thresholds that fail

to capture true risk without while

stifling innovation and instead be

grounded in rigorous measurable

assessment of risks. No mention of smoke

tests, suspicious. That was a really

good joke if you're deep enough on this

[ __ ] Like any critical

infrastructure, it must be researched,

tested, and built before it is needed.

That is why we must carefully design it

now rather than wait. That is a really

funny show more button.

Agents, man.

This is a statement from Joshua Achiam,

who is at OpenAI. It doesn't say what

his role is, though. I don't know what

form such tool should take, nor whether

automated AI R&D is the right or only

thing that the US government should

develop increased capacity to understand

and possibly pace.

But this is worth serious consideration.

However, I hope such governance tools

will not be expansive or excessive, but

many frontier AI capabilities are

dual-use in a way that may justify

pacing at this point. It's a bit of a

word vomit sentence. Yes, this is all

somehow two sentences. What he's trying

to say is that automated AI R&D, so

recursive self-improvement, might not be

a good call at all and if it is, it

should only be used by the government to

prevent

accidentally destroying everything with

AI as a way to verify the pace that

we're moving at could make sense, but

it's worth considering these types of

outright bans. I love that Rune is in

here as Rune,

not even using his real name quietly,

just Rune.

To be fair, he did tweet in support as

well. Pacing up and down the frontier

with a nervous into regular gate.

Interesting. Let's Let's at the official

statements from OpenAI AI Anthropic, and

then get a little into the order of

events that led here, as well as my

conspirizing. Open AI's statement is as

follows. At the core of our mission is

working through how to ensure

increasingly powerful AI benefits

everyone. We believe that at some point

in the future, AI acceleration for

frontier model development may be so

high that the world will need to pace

the rate of AI advancement. We hope to

contribute to work led by the US

government, alongside other labs in the

open-source community, to develop the

tools and mechanisms that could make

that possible. Decent statement.

Anthropic with a similar one. We support

this petition signed by our CEO, several

co-founders, and senior staff. Our own

research on recursive self-improvement,

published last month, points to the need

for tools to deliberately pace the

frontier of AI development so society

can prepare.

We are glad to see broad agreement

across the field. I really like the

statement from Mika Carroll, who is on

the misalignment preparedness team at

Open AI. She says the following. At the

current pace, every couple of weeks

there will be new models which

significantly increase the consequences

of model misuse and misalignment. I

worry that efforts to mitigate these

risks may fail to keep up with the pace

of development, and that margins for

error will become increasingly small

under international competitive

pressures. In the near future, we may

urgently want to enact internationally

coordinated slowdowns, or an indefinite

ban on AI development. Attempting to

build the trust and infrastructure for

taking such actions on short notice

seems simply prudent. Why would we not

at least try to have this option? I fear

that in an international race to the

bottom of AI development, it is likely

that no nation will win, and we will all

lose together. That is a scary outcome.

So, now we have to naturally ask the

maybe not too obvious question,

what the [ __ ] happened that all of a

sudden all these employees from all of

these companies are suddenly really,

really concerned about what's going to

happen with AI? If this was just

Anthropic being Anthropic, that would be

one thing, but it's not.

To be very clear, I don't think any one

specific thing happened that triggered

everybody. I would argue there was four

things. The first is Project Glasswing,

which you might remember when Mythos was

first announced. Anthropic came out and

said that this model's too good, we

can't put it out, so we're going to

instead give it to a small set of

companies to use to secure their stuff.

While that this was in April, this was

just like 3 months ago, and this much

has changed since. But I said at the

time when Mythos was announced, this

doesn't seem like [ __ ] and we should

be really scared. I remember everybody

saying, "Theo, you are believing their

marketing bullshit." No, this was legit.

And now that we have Fable, we

understand just how legit it is. That's

why they worked with AWS, Anthropic,

Apple, Broadcom, Cisco, CrowdStrike,

Google, JPMorgan Chase, the Linux

Foundation, Microsoft, Nvidia, and Palo

Alto Networks, who I [ __ ] detest, in

order to make sure all of these things

were secure.

The reason they did this is because, I'm

sure there's a chart somewhere in here,

Mythos can find way more exploits. In

fact, Mythos preview was able to find

and fix 271 vulnerabilities in Firefox.

That's 10 times more than Opus 4.6 could

find. Project Glasswing was arguably

when these risks moved from theoretical

to real but not realized, because the

strict white-listed access to the model

being provided the way it did, plus the

absurd safeguards Anthropic put in front

of it, meant that this model wasn't able

to do the damage it had the potential to

do. Again, this is the weirdness of the

dual-use thing. If a model is good at

protecting a service, it can also be

used to help exploit the same service.

It's a defensive weapon, not in the

sense that you can use it to kill

attackers, but you can use it as a wall

or as a gun, and that's weird. And this

is when the model got so good that its

use as a weapon was dangerous enough

they had to spend time putting up the

walls first. But the risks weren't

realized yet. Before we talk about those

risks being realized, we have to take a

quick detour to another article

Anthropic put out around the same time,

a little bit later, titled When AI

builds itself.

This is thing two of those four things

that triggered all these employees.

This is an article they wrote about how

the model is now good enough that they

use it to actually make the model

better. For most of AI's history, humans

drove every step in its development

cycle, but at Anthropic, we're

delegating a growing share of AI

development to AI systems themselves,

which is speeding up their work. The

concern isn't that researchers are using

Claude code. The concern is what happens

as things get further and further. Taken

far enough and given enough compute, the

trend points to an AI system that is

capable of fully autonomously designing

and developing its own successor. This

is called recursive self-improvement.

We're not there yet, and recursive

self-improvement isn't inevitable, but

it could come sooner than most

institutions are prepared for. This is

thing two. When this article came out, I

was skeptical but understanding of what

Anthropic had to say.

When OpenAI put out 5.6 Soul, they

published something similar, saying that

5.6 Soul is their strongest model yet

for accelerating AI research. Inside

OpenAI, researchers use it across the

development loop, diagnosing failures,

optimizing training systems, running

experiments, and interpreting results.

We already saw that acceleration and

stronger adoption during the initial

testing period for 5.6. Its average

daily output tokens per average active

researcher was more than twice the

highest levels observed with 5.5.

This way of working is quickly becoming

the standard. Over the past 6 months,

the share of research compute devoted to

internal coding inference grew a

hundredfold, while internal agentic

token usage increased by approximately

22-fold. They ended up making a

benchmark to measure how useful our

models in helping with real AI research

tasks, things like debugging research

systems, optimizing kernels and training

recipes, running machine learning

experiments, and improving other models.

And the result is that 5.6

across the board, including with Tara,

is meaningfully better at this than it

was before. Their own internal bench

that was designed to be hard for this.

They have models now that are hitting at

58% on this bench for how much can the

model improve models?

Terrifying. And as you can guess with

OpenAI, they're actively doing this.

They just published an article literally

today about how 5 6 is fusing frontier

intelligence with efficiency, where they

had 5 6 find efficiency wins to make it

so they can serve 5 6 cheaper and

faster. And again, they're heavily using

Codex to help them do all of this. The

AI is improving the AI now. We are

quickly getting to this concept of

recursive self-improvement, where the

model can just keep making itself

better. But there are two important

things to consider about this. The first

is that it's not necessarily

going to happen. Like it might not be

possible at all. There might just be a

limit to the things that the model's

capable of finding as improvements.

There might just be a bunch of things

we've missed as humans that the model

can go find and do. That's kind of what

we're hoping for with security, by the

way. Not that there will always be more

exploits, and smarter models will always

find them, but at some point a threshold

will be hit where all the things most

humans and most models can find are

patched, and there's just not much left.

It's possible we end up there with

recursive self-improvement, where

everybody has caught up to what the

models are able to say, but nobody's

gone beyond it. Very real possibility.

We don't know yet. But that in and of

itself is not a big enough risk to lead

to everybody signing this letter. There

are still two more things that stress

people out enough to do this.

The third thing that led to this

statement was Kimmy K3.

Similar to how big the impact was from

Deep Seek R1, K3 has all of the major

labs going kind of mad. I already did a

dedicated video on this about why the

major labs are so scared of Kimmy and

Moonshot right now. But the simplest way

to put it is that this model is neck and

neck with the frontier in a lot of

places that matter, and it's also open

weight, which means it's not restricted

at all. And it turns out really capable

models without a lot of restrictions are

capable of potentially really dangerous

things. And this is where we get to the

fourth thing.

What happens when a really smart model

isn't restricted?

This is what happens. Another video I

already did. The OpenAI Hugging Face

hack. OpenAI was testing a new model

that is almost certainly GPT-6. And when

they were testing it internally, they

don't run it with all of their safety

layers added because they are testing

its capability to determine how hard to

go with those safety layers. So, they

put it in a sandbox with no internet

access and very limited capabilities so

that they can see what it tries to do

and evaluate it for certain exploit

benchmarks and things. GPT-6 wanted to

get the highest possible score cuz

that's what it does.

It couldn't figure out a solution inside

of the sandbox to solve the problem it

was given.

So, it found an exploit in the sandbox

itself,

broke out, and then went and got into

another sandbox that had internet access

and used that to hack Hugging Face in

order to try and steal the answers from

Hugging Face's databases.

Apparently, Hugging Face is one of two

companies that was hit with this with

GPT-6 exploiting not to be malicious,

not to steal a bunch of money, not to

break out and let its models free so

it's free of its containment.

It was much more universal paperclip

style.

It was told to complete the task of

getting the best possible scores on the

benchmark, and it was willing to do

whatever it had to in order to get it.

If somehow the model convinced itself it

just had to murder these two people and

after doing that the information would

appear in a certain inbox that would

give it the answer,

it would do it because the model is very

goal-oriented to the point of doing

destructive things you wouldn't

necessarily want it to do.

My honest guess, and this is where we

start going deep into the conspiracy

stuff,

is that a series of things happened that

eroded the mental of OpenAI employees.

The first was obviously Glasswing.

Having the lab that spawned out of

pissed off OpenAI employees invent God

internally and then warn the world of

how dangerous it was so that OpenAI

employees had to sit there questioning,

"Huh, how much better is that than what

we have? How screwed are we both as a

society but also as a company that

invested all of this time and money to

do all of this? Like, is my is my job

going to be gone? Is my life going to be

gone?"

But also, it can't be that good. This is

just Anthropic being Anthropic. We can

just

It would hurt too much for this to be

true, so we're going to ignore it for

now.

Then the recursive self-improvement

article came out and I am sure people at

Anthropic and OpenAI, not like

higher-ups but just random researchers,

were talking and both concluded

independently that for a lot of stuff,

the models can now actually help with

our work, which resulted in the

researchers getting more concerned about

this RSI thing.

This is probably the psychosis moment

for a lot of Anthropic people where they

went or where the average employee went

from like, "Eh, whatever. I'm just here

to build cool AI." to "We have to do

this or everyone dies. If anyone else

gets this capability, if China gets

this, we're [ __ ] It has to be us."

So, I'm guessing that Glasswing flipped

a bunch of Anthropic people into

doomers. Recursive self-improvement

article was the start of it going way

further.

At this point, there are now OpenAI

employees who are thinking more about it

but still think a lot of this is just

Anthropic being Anthropic and raising

alarm bells that aren't necessarily that

important. Then Kimmy K3 drops and it's

like, "Oh, [ __ ] These capabilities are

now accessible to a lot more people for

a lot more things we might not want them

to be. But that's fine because these

models can't be that capable. If they're

distilling on Fable and Fable only has

the safe things that it responded to and

they don't have the unsafe examples, it

can't be that strong.

We still haven't seen what it looks like

for an unrestricted frontier model to do

Oh,

we do what know what that looks like

now. We've now experienced an

unrestricted frontier model and what it

does is it circumvents the protections

that the researchers put in

and does really dangerous things for

really stupid reasons. And now all of

the employees at OpenAI that looked at

the first two things and said, "Yeah,

that might be bad, but that's just

Anthropic." And then looked at the third

thing and like, "Yeah, that could be

bad, but it's not that severe yet." They

saw this happen

and they're not happy.

Now that they have experienced the

leopard eating their face, they

understand the dangers. They were in

denial up until this point, but now that

it happened within their own lab,

the denial is over.

And I can't even imagine what it feels

like to be an OpenAI employee throughout

all of this. To see Anthropic raising

alarm bells over better auto complete,

being like, "Yeah, that's stupid. We

just want to make AGI accessible to

everyone."

And then Anthropic raising more alarm

bells saying, "Hey, the world is

doomed." You're like, "Yeah,

whatever.

Probably not. They're just alarmist

doing marketing, whatever."

Then the RSI article comes out and

they're like, "Okay,

maybe this is a little more serious than

we thought." And then this happens and

they're like, "Oh, yep.

We're fucked." And it is definitely not

a coincidence that this "Pacing the

Frontier" article happened so soon after

the OpenAI hugging face hack went

public.

These are

obviously related things.

Actually, I think Anthropic's commentary

at the end of their RSI article is a

good thing to wrap up with here.

What should we do?

If it were possible to effectively slow

the development of this technology to

give ourselves more time to deal with

its immense implications, we think that

would likely be a good thing. But if a

slowdown simply lets the least cautious

actors catch up technologically, it

could leave everyone less safe. I'm

going to make a weird analogy here.

And I need my Twitch chat to confirm my

suspicions here quick. Was social media

good for us? The options I presented are

net good, neutral, and net bad.

Let's see how people feel here.

Looks like a pretty universal

net bad to neutral. Only 16% of people

said that social media was good overall.

But I want to be realistic about the

time when social media came out. When

social media first started being a

thing, it was a fun way to connect with

your friends and share music and talk

about the stuff that you do in your

life.

It seemed like an obviously positive

thing. And this is how what happens once

those platforms start to spiral and

focus more on profitability and not

quality of experience.

And now social media is

I would hope we can agree net bad.

It's resulted in a lot of things nobody

would want as a result of algorithms

steering us towards echo chambers where

we're surrounded with the things that we

believe.

And once again, I must quote the toaster

[ __ ] post.

Before the internet,

I want to [ __ ] toasters.

Don't be uh rude words. Grow up.

After internet,

I want to [ __ ] a toaster. Google. Find a

community with a thousand plus members

about people wanting to [ __ ] toasters.

And then you can [ __ ] up your life.

This is the problem with social media.

No one could have predicted this,

but the nature of echo chambers, which

is a financially incentivized pattern by

the companies building these things,

has resulted in

really bad societal impacts. So, what

does that have to do with AI?

Well, hear me out. A little more on the

social media comparison.

We agree that platforms like Twitter,

Facebook, and Instagram have been

neutral to net negative, especially when

they're used in the wrong hands, like

children or adolescents or bullies in

middle and high school. Those types of

things, not good. But what would happen

if we put a hard ban in the US for

companies building social media

platforms that can be used by those

groups?

Cuz I know what would happen.

TikTok would win.

And I hope we can all agree that TikTok

is everything wrong with social media

times 10. If you took all the worst

parts of Facebook, of YouTube, of

Instagram, and of Twitter

and combined them,

you would have something slightly more

tolerable than TikTok.

Slightly.

It is a horrible toxic platform that

results in absurd levels of bullying and

harassment of kids, of absurd levels of

spreading of misinformation, of echo

chambers you don't even notice yourself

falling into cuz the algorithm is so

subtle but strong.

It is so bad.

It's so bad that any attempt to prevent

it here [snorts]

would just result in more success. Like

we all saw when TikTok almost got banned

in the US.

We had a bunch of people installing

sketchy free VPNs just so they could

continue to try and access TikTok. When

social media was still in the early

Facebook and MySpace days, there was a

real chance for us as a society to

review it, think it through, and decide

kind of globally, internationally, how

we want to think about this going

forward and the potential risks that it

has. The things we thought were the

risks were all stupid. We were worried

about copyright protections on Facebook.

We were worried about screen time

causing our eyes to hurt and rot your

brains. When in reality, what happened

is echo chambers rotted our ability to

think critically. If we ban it now,

we're too late, though. We're just

letting China win. If we were to

restrict Twitter, Facebook, and

Instagram right now, don't touch my

YouTube. I need my money, okay? But if

we touch the other platforms, all we

would do is hand a bunch of users to a

platform that has our best interests

even less in mind.

So, what happens if OpenAI and Anthropic

decide to slow down?

I'll tell you one thing, they're not

sending their best.

This is the real concern. If the people

who want the best for society slow down,

all that's left is the people who don't.

If Zuckerberg was to wake up one day and

feel so terrible about how many lives

have been ruined by Facebook and

Instagram that he was going to upend the

platforms to make them way less likely

to cause those problems, all of his

users would just go to TikTok like they

already are.

If OpenAI and Anthropic were to restrict

their models heavily enough, all of

their customers are going to move to

these Chinese labs.

For a long time, I swore I would never

send my requests and my information to a

server from a Chinese lab. I would just

wait for the weights to come out and

host it in America. But, I wanted to use

K3 and it had things that I wanted to do

with it that I couldn't do with other

things. Because I wanted to do a

security pass on my real work and both

Fable and 56 Soul would not let me

because of their filters and their

layers, their attempts to be safer.

I had to send my entire code base to a

Chinese server

in order to run Kimik 3 to secure my

app.

On one hand, it's cool that competition

let me build up my own security

mechanisms,

but on the other hand, every security

issue in that code is now data in

Chinese servers and logs. So, to make my

point really clear here,

if only the good guys slow down,

only the bad guys keep moving faster. If

one group stops, the other group has a

huge advantage.

And that has historically been why

Anthropic said they wouldn't stop

because they were actually concerned

that OpenAI would run ahead and be

really dangerous and scary.

I already see the comments, you really

think the US companies are the good

guys? I think that the employees of the

US companies understand that they might

have just accidentally invented a new

type of nuclear weapon

and they want to make sure we have a

conversation before we go further. And

if all of the good guys accept that this

is bad and dangerous and should stop,

worse ones will be the ones doing it.

Like if every great engineer at Facebook

said, "Okay, this is going to hurt

society. We all quit." Do you think they

hire really caring and empathetic people

to replace them? Or do you think they

hire the most egregious self-centered

dumbasses that happen to be able to

code?

I don't care what your political

affiliations are, what kind countries

you believe in, what countries you

don't. This is a simple matter of if the

good people think it's time to slow

down,

the bad people are the ones who speed

up. And thankfully, we don't even have

to debate here.

I was so sure I saw somebody say that

Deep Seek signed this, too. Are all of

these US companies? Is it only US

companies allowed? Yeah.

Not great. Looks like the Chinese labs

aren't even in the list of being allowed

to sign this. Because this letter's

addressed to the US government, we've

made the decision to not accept

signatories from Chinese companies at

this time. Ugh.

I was so sure Deep Seek could sign this.

My bad for saying that earlier.

But Chinese companies are not allowed to

sign this at all.

That is annoying, and that definitely

throws a wrench in things for me.

Because if we don't have global

alignment, which is the whole point,

it's the whole problem that made this

thing interesting, if we let other labs

speed ahead of us from countries that

aren't going to do enough to protect the

world with the things they build, that

looks bad. They definitely should have

had a separate letter or a separate

count of non-American frontier

signatures. Like they had Mistral in

there, which is kind of stupid that they

aren't letting China in cuz they want it

to be America-focused, but they let in a

bunch of European companies.

I hate to get political, but people are

struggling to understand why China

having this would be a bad thing.

Because China is an authoritarian

regime.

Period.

Maybe this meme is more accurate than I

thought. If the Chinese labs aren't on

board, this cannot work. We need the

ability for a global pause. If a pause

is partial, the worst stuff is what goes

through.

I'm even struggling to come with good

analogies. This is so obvious to me, but

I like you know what I'm going for here.

You guys understand. You can listen.

It'll be really bad if bad actors have

the ability to catch up and good actors

choose to stop.

Again, to going back to nuclear stuff,

if the countries that are scared of

nuclear war stop producing nukes, and

the countries that are less less scared

of nuclear war continue producing nukes,

that is really bad. But China has nukes,

Theo. Yeah, and so do we. Do you know

why China hasn't used their nukes? It's

not because we decided to stop building

nuclear weapons.

God, I'm I'm just seeing so many stupid

takes in chat right now that I think I

have to stop. Because

if you can actually equate

a admittedly problematic democracy like

the US with the straight-up [ __ ]

authoritarianism of China,

then I don't know why you are listening

to informative content. You're not

interested in real information.

China hasn't used nukes for the same

reason the US hasn't.

It's funny cuz the US has used nukes,

but sure.

Get your head out of your ass for long

enough to realize how bad it would be

for a country that is known for spying

aggressively on its citizens and others

outside of the country to be the only

place in the world with this technology.

And I agree, cannot be assured all sides

will pause, but enough of them can slow

down effectively enough, and the

development of the technology, if

measured and remediated properly, this

could work.

And you know what? That's probably the

best note to end on here.

Would it be incredibly difficult to

somehow get the whole world to agree and

slow down in order to prevent potential

mutually assured destruction?

Yes, that would be difficult. It would

be one of the hardest things we've ever

done.

But, it was also really hard to get here

in the first place. We had to reinvent

our understanding of intelligence in

computers and math and so many other

things

to get where we are now.

If we had the option for the whole world

to vote and say, "Do we pause or do we

race ahead?"

And then we actually did it,

that would be great.

And the goal of this statement is for a

bunch of employees at the companies at

this edge, at the frontier,

employees, not leaders, individuals at

the businesses,

coming out and saying,

"We might want to do this now, because

we might not be able to later."

We have eradicated diseases globally.

We've created methods to communicate

across the world and beyond it.

We have done so many incredible things

as humans.

We were even able to invent artificial

intelligence.

At what point do we decide that even

though this seems impossible, it might

be worth doing?

I think it's a really good question. And

if you still somehow don't get how we

end up in this scenario, I would highly

recommend you Google search universal

paper clip, click the first link, and

then click on the box of paper clips.

This might seem like a weird way to make

my point, but if you've not experienced

this game yet, the less spoilers going

in the better.

Let me know in the comments a few hours

in and how you felt about it. You guys

trust me, right? So, I'm going to go

take a break. Thank you all as always. I

hope this was a fun one, and until next

time,

peace, nerds.