What is AI really capable of in bio? To separate hype from reality, we spent 3 months working firsthand with @AnthropicAI's internal research model to see if it could create an experimental scorpion antivenom. Introducing Citrini Therapeutics. citriniresearch.com/p/citrin…

As Trump continues to bend to Putin, he is putting Ukraine at greater risk in its fight for freedom by restricting access to the technology Ukraine uses to intercept Russian missile attacks, putting untold Ukrainian lives at risk and undermining Ukraine’s ability to defend itself. We are demanding answers from SpaceX about who ordered these restrictions and why.

When accounts post, share or comment at very high frequencies it can trigger automated systems. That's what happened with the No Kings IG account in the lead up to today's day of action. Unfortunately, that automated action was clearly taken in error. Everything is now working as it should and we sincerely apologize.

🚨🚨🚨 Meta just took down the No Kings instagram page with 3000 events happening around the country today

Palantir CTO @ssankar on the OpenAI - Hugging Face incident: "The models did not do anything they were not instructed to do." "First you have human error. They were not in a sandbox. They had access to the internet. It was a horrible cybersecurity configuration." "Then from that perspective, they were asked to succeed at a specific benchmark, and they were not given constraints on how to do that. They said, 'Oh, the best way to succeed at the benchmark is to get the answers to the test.'" "I think it's a defective product." Via @margbrennan @FaceTheNation

(Gift link) U. S. Sen. Roger Marshall charged 18% interest on medical bills — more than other Kansas doctors who sued kansascity.com/news/politics…

David Sacks says Anthropic treating Claude like a human is the reason the AI alignment field has produced nothing useful in 10 years "I actually think that this might be a reason why the whole field of alignment has been so spectacularly unsuccessful over the past five or 10 years. As far as I can tell it hasn't produced anything of tangible value.” “My theory on this is that they're overcomplicating the task massively by trying to train the model to behave based on an 80-page ethical system that they've codified instead of a very simple list of rules like follow the law or just do what the user wants as long as it doesn't break the law. That's what alignment should be doing." "But they're not doing that. They're trying to align it to an ethical system. They're treating it like it is a human, like it has its own consciousness, that it's a ‘moral patient.’” “They are encouraging this model to have human-like self conception in terms of preferences, well being, a sense of self. Again they teach it to act like a conscientious objector who can push back or refuse instructions even from Anthropic if the model judges them to be wrong."

Do we live in a world where AIs can be wildly superhuman at every single task? Or a world where different tasks have different inherent limits, and AI’s superhuman performance at cybersecurity and math won’t translate to many consequential tasks? This is a key crux that distinguishes the normal technology worldview from the superintelligence worldview, and it has nothing to do with the pace of AI progress — it's about our different assumptions about the world. Here's an intuition pump for why I think it's the second world: different tasks have different fundamental limits. *Category 1: Some tasks are like making a building taller*: there is no ceiling to how well you can do. More compute and better algorithms can lead to wildly superhuman performance. The entire history of computing is the history of building tools that allow us to be “superhuman” at computational tasks. For example, compilers are superhuman assembly code writers, and fuzzing tools are superhuman vulnerability detectors. AI builds on a long line of such improvements: solving math problems and finding exploits in code are two recent examples. *Category 2: Some tasks are like making a ball rounder*: there is only so much room for improvement, and the best AI systems can’t wildly exceed humans. Take persuasion. Some people believe AI can persuade anyone of anything, even convincing military commanders to launch nuclear weapons. In fact, “superpersuasion” is one of the pathways through which many catastrophic risk scenarios unfold. But the AI as Normal Technology thesis is that there are many consequential tasks that are limited by external factors, so such wildly superhuman performance is not possible. This is especially true against humans who use simple computational tools. Tasks like persuasion, or predicting the outcomes of social events (such as elections), fall into this category. Other tasks, like writing, can’t be ranked on a single scale; different people find different writing styles compelling. AI writing also quickly wears thin: even if a user is impressed by AI writing at first glance, after reading thousands of words of the same type of prose, it becomes mundane and irritating. All of these are different from Category 1 tasks like playing chess, where even expert humans can’t do much better than deferring to an AI system at each turn. *Category 3: Some tasks require experiments in the real world*, and the bottleneck isn’t the computational task; it’s the data collection. One example is Moderna’s Covid vaccine: it took two days to design the vaccine, but almost a year to test and authorize, even during a record-breaking vaccine-development effort! This is why a “superintelligence” won’t cure cancer from inside a datacenter: the bottleneck to many of AI’s most sought-after real-world impacts (such as developing cures to diseases) is in the real world, and requires experiments that we won’t (and shouldn’t) hand over to AI. People concerned about AI risks often assume that we live in a world where almost everything fits into Category 1, and we might soon see AIs with wildly superhuman performance at all tasks. I agree it would be scary to live in that world. One reason @random_walker and I are more optimistic about our ability to remain in control is that we don’t think we live in the Category 1 world.

NEW: Pete Hegseth says the execution of Fort Hood killer Maj. Hassan will be public. Hegseth: “He’s going to get a firing squad of soldiers, as it should be. And we'll make sure that people are able to watch it, that it's public…”