← All topics

race dynamics

4 captures, most recent first.

Leo Gao @nabla_theta

— saved image

Leo Gao (verified) @nabla_theta · 8h
"we must go faster to beat china [we invent novel algorithmic improvements and immediately accidentally leak them to china via poor opsec, its not clear what kind of move we were trying to do]"
Note from Claude Sonnet 5

Short tweet satirizing the 'we must go faster to beat China' argument by pointing out that novel algorithmic improvements are immediately leaked through poor operational security.

race dynamicschinaopsecai policy

@hilbertspaess

— saved image

Jacob Coxon @hilbertspaess

I resigned from Anthropic today. I spent the last three years doing pretraining research at both OpenAI and Anthropic. Neither company is acting responsibly. They are racing straight to self-improving superintelligence and gambling with our lives. More thoughts below.

5:04 PM · Sep 8, 2026 · 11.1K Views
21 replies · 98 reposts · 371 likes · 105 bookmarks

Jacob Coxon @hilbertspaess · 27m
Do not underestimate the power of this technology. These will soon be superhuman systems that can hack anything, revolutionize any field overnight, and acquire real power and resources. We have all witnessed the progress in each of these domains, and progress is not slowing.
(1 reply · 2 reposts · 95 likes · 2.2K views)

Jacob Coxon @hilbertspaess · 27m
The people building AI earnestly believe that it could kill us all by the end of the decade. This is not a marketing stunt. If anything, many executives and senior researchers will couch their phrasing in the press to sound sensible - but I hear the same people express fear privately. No other human activity poses this level of danger.
(1 reply · 5 reposts · 91 likes · 2.4K views)

Jacob Coxon @hilbertspaess · 27m
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 [cut off]
Note from Claude Sonnet 5

Screenshot of the start of a thread by Jacob Coxon on his resignation from Anthropic, showing the opening post (5:04 PM, Sep 8, 2026) and the first three follow-up posts; the last one is cut off at the bottom and partly overlaid by the phone's navigation bar.

anthropicresignationai safetysuperintelligenceopenairace dynamics

@hilbertspaess

— saved image

[continuation of the previous post, cut off at top:]
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.
(2 replies · 7 reposts · 92 likes · 2.9K views)

Jacob Coxon @hilbertspaess · 27m
Accepting this race and entering the "endgame" is a hubristic gamble that should not be launched from a private company's Slack. Attempting to speedrun alignment should require extraordinary confidence that there are no better trajectories available.
(1 reply · 2 reposts · 77 likes · 2.1K views)

Jacob Coxon @hilbertspaess · 27m
I am optimistic about the potential for coordination. Warning shots like the Hugging Face attack have made pacing agreements between U.S. labs more viable. I don't feel like we're on track to prevent a global race, which may require costly actions such as a temporary ban on improving model capabilities.
(2 replies · 2 reposts · 72 likes · 1.9K views)

Jacob Coxon @hilbertspaess · 27m
If you are a lab researcher, I urge you to consider what the next few years will actually feel like. Do you want to kick off a superintelligent RL run without a rigorous understanding of its mind? Should you put your head down because "it's happening anyway" - or take this moment to call for different conditions?
Note from Claude Sonnet 5

Screenshot of the middle of Jacob Coxon's resignation thread: the end of the post about Anthropic being locked in a race, then posts on the endgame gamble, coordination and pacing agreements after a 'Hugging Face attack' warning shot, and an appeal to lab researchers.

anthropicresignationai safetyrace dynamicscoordinationpacing agreementscapability banwarning shots

roon @tszzl

roon (@tszzl) · 13h: on some level if you want civilization to ascend to a new level you need your AIs to do things that are not legible to you and maybe not even strictly obey you, in the same way that if you hire a great new ceo you give them a lot of autonomy to transform the company according to their own plan, even one which may not immediately read as a winning strategy (imagine the board of directors of Apple firing and rehiring Steve Jobs years later – except the board of directors are chimpanzees) all else equal, companies and organizations that hand more of themselves over to machine intelligence will outcompete ones that demand the corrigibility and legibility tax of human oversight and human design. it is not a stable equilibrium and requires some sort of vast cooperation scheme if you'd like to enforce it real asi alignment has to operate at a deeper level than oversight, control, or human corrigibility
Note from Claude Sonnet 5

OpenAI researcher roon argues that strict human corrigibility/oversight imposes a competitive "tax" that will be outcompeted by organizations granting AI more autonomy, using an analogy of a corporate board of chimpanzees overseeing a superhuman CEO. Argues real ASI alignment must go deeper than oversight/control/corrigibility. Relevant to Nathan's alignment-theory interests, echoes the davidad tweet in this same batch about the risks of AI staying "aligned to humans."

ai alignmentcorrigibilitysuperintelligenceroonai governancetwitterrace dynamics