9 captures, most recent first.
Miles Brundage ✔ @Miles_Brundage · 5h
[Embedded hand-drawn comic, two figures: left figure (bearded, glasses, t-shirt with a small "o" logo resembling a Reddit-like alien face) says: "There seems to be a mistake. Section 3(c) in the executive order made clear that the testing regime was completely voluntary." Right figure (wearing a cap with an "X" logo, holding an assault rifle, angry expression) shouts: "Do the voluntary testing!!"]
Quoted:
> QUOTED: Polymarket M... ✔ @PolymarketM... · 6h
> [thumbnail of a news headline: "...Meta to Agre[e]... Security Conc[erns]... urging the lone major t[ech company]... t safety evaluations, we[re]... latest model."]
> JUST IN: $META is facing Trump administration pressure to submit its AI models for voluntary government safety reviews.
Note from Claude Sonnet 5
A hand-drawn political cartoon satirizing the coercive framing of "voluntary" AI safety testing, paired with a Polymarket news alert about Meta facing Trump administration pressure to submit AI models for voluntary safety reviews.
ai-policymetatrump-administrationsatiretwitter
Miles Brundage ✔ @Miles_Brundage · 9h
[Embedded image: Family Guy screenshot — Peter Griffin, seated in a car with a seatbelt on, is shown a paint-color swatch card by a hand entering from the left. Top of card reads "OKAY" over light/pale color swatches, bottom reads "NOT OKAY" over darker orange/brown swatches, divided by a red line. Peter's eyes are replaced with the OpenAI logo (interlocking loop/knot symbol) inset in a white square over his face. "Global HD" watermark bottom right.]
Quoted:
> QUOTED: A Axios ✔ @axios · 10h
> White House quiet on OpenAI's Mythos-like model axios.com/2026/06/23/whi...
Note from Claude Sonnet 5
A meme using a well-known Family Guy "okay/not okay" paint-swatch scene, with Peter Griffin's eyes swapped for the OpenAI logo, commenting sarcastically on an Axios article about White House silence regarding an OpenAI model reportedly similar to Anthropic's "Mythos."
openaiwhite-houseai-policymemetwitter
.@PeterWildeford wins the 2025 ACX forecasting competition!
That means he's placed 20th, 12th, 12th, 1st in the last 4 years. I am not joking when I say he's a spectacular forecaster. Scott agrees:
[Quoted/embedded block, apparently from Scott Alexander's ACX post]
1: Congratulations to the winners of last year's ACX/Metaculus Forecasting Contest, especially:
- Peter Wildeford, who placed 1st out of all 650 participants. Peter is a forecasting celebrity, a leader at EA organizations Rethink Priorities and Institute For AI Policy and Strategy, and a blogger at The Power Law. He regularly makes the top 20 or so, but this year he was able to close the distance and take the top spot. I often rely on his blogging for my geopolitical opinions, and these contest results suggest that you should too. Peter is also the first ACX Forecasting Contest winner to have been featured on the Daily Show:
[Embedded YouTube video thumbnail: "Ronny Chieng Investigates the Promises of AI, the Most Expensive ..." — Daily Show clip "RONNY TAKES ON AI" with Oracle/Cloud Computing and OpenAI/ChatGPT logos]
7:20 AM · Feb 2, 2026 · 5,758 Views
Note from Claude Sonnet 5
A tweet celebrating Peter Wildeford's win of the 2025 ACX/Metaculus forecasting contest, quoting Scott Alexander's congratulatory post. Adjacent to AI policy/forecasting circles Nathan follows (EA, Rethink Priorities, IAPS) but not directly about AI safety/consciousness themes.
forecastingeffective-altruismai-policytwitteracx
```
dave kasten (@David_Kasten, 2h): "I would also like to register a piece of _advice_: If you work on AI issues, treat this as a fire drill. Think about, for good or ill, the ways in which you have or have not tracked and responded to this well today, and figure out what to do better next time." > QUOTED: Dean W. Ball (@deanwball, 3h): "registering the prediction that moltbook will probably not become Actually Important, even if it does become a viral phenomenon covered in mainstream media. it'll be a neat curiosity, maybe even a continued source of intrigue,
entertainment, and controversy, but not itself be some earth-shattering thing. yet it is a big deal. it is not even so much what it reveals about what will be possible in the future that matters so much (that has been obvious for years to most careful observers of this field). instead, what matters is what this phenomenon reveals *to whom* about what is going to be possible in AI, and what is possible now. it's "normies," a horrible word by which I mean "people not obsessed with AI," waking up to, well, the reason all of us are obsessed with AI. in that sense it is a little like DeepSeek, though perhaps on a much smaller scale (hard to know, but probably), which brought in many new people to the field and caused others to start taking AI much more seriously. on the whole this is good for AI and for society, though it may provoke some startled and therefore rash reactions. > QUOTED: Nabeel S. Qureshi @nabeelqu · 8h > Moltbook (the new AI agent social network) is insane and hilarious, but it is also, in Nick Bostrom's phrase, a Disneyland with no children > [Embedded image of text, apparently from Bostrom, reading:] We could imagine, as an extreme case, a technologically highly advanced society, containing many complex structures, some of them far more intricate and intelligent than anything that exists on the planet today – a society which nevertheless lacks any type of being that is conscious or whose welfare has moral significance. In a sense, this would be an uninhabited society. It would be a society of economic miracles and technological awesomeness, with nobody there to benefit. A Disneyland with no children.
```
Note from Claude Sonnet 5
AI-policy commentators (Dave Kasten, Dean Ball — both known for AI governance work) discussing MoltBook (the AI-only social network where the "Crustafarianism" religion emerged, per the companion screenshot from the same session) as a "fire drill" for the AI policy community — a small, low-stakes but structurally interesting event worth treating as practice for tracking and responding to emergent AI phenomena. Directly connects to Nathan's MoltBook-adjacent interests (the corpus referenced in his uniqueness_checker work) and to AI governance discourse on how seriously to take viral AI-agent behavior. Commentary thread on Moltbook (the AI-agent social network Nathan's own project archive references, e.g. `moltbook_instructions.md`) reacting to Nabeel Qureshi's framing of it via Bostrom's "Disneyland with no children" thought experiment about consciousness and moral significance. Directly relevant to model welfare/consciousness threads in Nathan's archive.
moltbookai-governanceai-policyemergent-behaviortwitterdean-balldave-kastenai agentsconsciousnessmoral significancebostromdean ballnabeel qureshiai commentary
Séb Krier (@sebkrier, 1h): "children are more prepared for AGI than adults will ever be"
> QUOTED: Frances Klein (@fklein907): "It's pretty impressive how chill toddlers are most of the time when you remember that they usually have 0 context for anything that is happening.
Today, a week after we moved to another state, my son looked around and then asked, 'are we still on earth?'"
Note from Claude Sonnet 5
A light, whimsical tweet drawing an analogy between toddlers' equanimity in the face of total contextual disorientation and how humans might need to cope with AGI-driven upheaval. Séb Krier works in AI policy (Google DeepMind); minor cultural commentary rather than substantive research.
agitwitterhumorai-policyseb-krier
Peter Wildeford (@peterwildef…, 7h): "Here's a handy flowchart for my views"
[Chart: three-panel flowchart]
"Waymos / self-driving cars" → "If anything too safe, should face far fewer barriers to widespread adoption"
"Current LLMs (ChatGPT etc)" → "Safety seems about right, though Grok and Meta in particular could be much better. I'm also worried a bit about what OS [open source] models can do. Use in some industries is likely overregulated."
"Future advanced AI, including superintlligence [sic]" → "It's really crazy we don't have a better plan for handling this"
Note from Claude Sonnet 5
Peter Wildeford (AI policy analyst, Institute for AI Policy and Strategy) summarizing his regulatory stance across three AI risk tiers — self-driving cars (underregulated relative to safety), current LLMs (roughly right, with specific concerns about Grok/Meta and open-source models), and future superintelligent AI (no adequate plan). Concise snapshot of a mainstream-ish AI-policy position relevant to Nathan's governance tracking.
ai-policyai-governanceself-driving-carsopen-source-aisuperintelligencetwitterpeter-wildeford
William MacAskill @willmacaskill
Today I'm publishing a series of research notes on the idea of an international AGI project.
The aim is to assess how desirable an international AGI project is, and what the best version of such a project is (taking feasibility into account).
The main result is a proposal I call "Intelsat for AGI" — modelled the international project that developed the first global satellite communications network.
The core idea is that we can get most of the benefits of an international project by giving non-US countries meaningful influence over only a relatively small number of decisions.
By making non-US influence circumscribed in this way, and letting the US call the shots day to day, the proposal becomes both more feasible and less likely to get bogged down in bureaucracy.
The full series has discussion of why this might be desirable, what the AGI project should focus on, and how to make this more likely.
Most of this work was written as part of a research avenue that we don't currently plan to pursue further. It's more like work-in-progress than Forethought's usual publications, but we're sharing it as we think some people may find it useful.
Note from Claude Sonnet 5
William MacAskill (effective altruism / Forethought Foundation) announces a research note series proposing "Intelsat for AGI" — an international AGI governance model modeled on the Intelsat satellite consortium, giving non-US countries limited influence while the US retains day-to-day control. Directly relevant to Nathan's interest in AI governance and international coordination proposals for frontier AI development.
ai-governanceagimacaskillforethoughtinternational-coordinationtwitterai-policy
Dean W. Ball @deanwball · 4h
I know I rail a lot about all the flavors of AI copium but I do empathize.
A few companies are making machines smarter in most ways than humans, and they are going to succeed. The cope is byproduct of an especially immature grieving stage, but all of us are early in our grief.
Note from Claude Sonnet 5
Dean Ball (AI policy commentator, former Trump administration AI policy staffer) reflecting on "AI copium" as a form of collective grief over AI surpassing human intelligence, framing skeptical/dismissive reactions to AI progress as an early grief-stage defense mechanism. Relevant to Nathan's interest in societal/psychological response to transformative AI and singularity discourse.
ai-policydean-ballgrieftwitterai-progresssocietal-responsesingularity
Buck Shlegeris @bshlgrs
I think the Iraq war has some interesting lessons for AI safety advocates.
It's an example of a crazy event (9/11) leading to an extreme action (invading an unrelated country) because the crazy event empowered a pre-existing interest group (neocons).
11:55 AM · Jul 10, 2025 · 1,915 Views
💬2 🔁1 ♡44 🔖10
Buck Shlegeris @bshlgrs · 9h
Post here. lesswrong.com/posts/PLZh4dcZ...
[embedded link card: lesswrong.com — "Lessons from the Iraq War about AI policy — ..."]
♡6 📊392
Nathan Helm-... @nathan846... · 7h
In a serious way, I appreciate the thoughtful post. On a silly note, I had a great moment of delighted confusion when I misread 'neocons' as 'raccoons.' 🦝
Note from Claude Sonnet 5
Buck Shlegeris (Redwood Research, AI safety) draws an analogy between the Iraq War (a shock event empowering a pre-existing interest group into extreme action) and AI safety policy, linking to a LessWrong post. Nathan himself replied under his own account (@nathan846...) — a rare direct trace of Nathan's own public engagement with the AI safety community, worth noting for the archive as his own voice/participation rather than just something he read.
ai-safetyai-policybuck-shlegerislesswrongiraq-war-analogynathan-own-post
