lab insiders

Keller Jordan @kellerjordan0 · 2h
I think one of the reasons people in the AI field — especially in the labs — tend to be more “AGI-pilled” than people outside is that we get to observe AI succeed at tasks that we know for a fact we didn’t explicitly train it for.

Whereas if you’re outside the labs, then in theory (stretching the imagination), every AI success so far could be downstream of some kind of costly explicit training effort by the lab insiders (which is partly but not completely true).

In other words, being a lab insider gives you a direct observation of the “magical” properties of this synthetic-brain technology. Whereas for outsiders, AI’s abilities can always plausibly seem artificial/non-magical/man-made.

agigeneralizationlab insidersepistemicskeller jordan

Richard Ngo @RichardMCNgo

2026-08-27 — saved image

Richard Ngo @RichardMCNgo

You don't need to stay to do good research: work that aims to scale to much more intelligent systems can almost always be done on publicly-available models. (And nobody can think creatively in such pressure cookers.)

You don't need to stay to gain influence, because you're almost definitely too scared to wield that influence in ways which matter (see the tweet on public criticism above).

You don't need to stay to generate scary demos or warn policymakers: we will be swimming in warning shots before long.

You don't need to stay to advance AI capabilities, even if you're worried about the latest bogeyman your CEO has constructed: "we need to do it to beat the bad guys" is a big part of what makes people the bad guys.

You don't need to be there to implement guardrails or other short-term mitigations: there are plenty of bright young things eager to slot into your place in the machine.

You don't even need to be there to feel rich and powerful. For one, you're probably already rich (and there's plenty of money up for grabs elsewhere). But more importantly, the sense of power is almost entirely illusory. Everyone involved has locked themselves into a mindset where they're incapable of making real choices, except for how fast to barrel down the train tracks that their fear has laid out for [cut off]

ai safetylab insidersalignment researchrichard ngoai capabilitieswarning shots

Daniel Kokotajlo @DKokotajlo

2026-08-27 — saved image

Daniel Kokotajlo @DKokotajlo · 17m
To everyone at Anthropic or OpenAI or Meta or xAI or GDM: I agree with Richard here and we are both speaking from years of experience, years of talking to people on the inside who justified their behavior using one or more of the following arguments, and whose justifications turned out to be incorrect for the reasons Richard described.

For those who don't know, Richard is a convert to this view. When he and I were at OpenAI together he was dismissive on people on the outside who said things like this. (For example, I remember him saying to me when I left that he was going to stay because, in part, it would give him access to the latest models during the intelligence explosion which would allow him to do better alignment research.) I say this because it makes his current opinion more credible. I have great respect for him for changing his mind, on this and on various other things.

[Quoted tweet]
Richard Ngo @RichardMCNgo · Aug 25
Replying to @RichardMCNgo
You don't need to stay to do good research: work that aims to scale to much more intelligent systems can almost always be done on publicly-available models. (And nobody can think ... [cut off]

ai safetylab insidersalignment researchdaniel kokotajlorichard ngo