Chris Paxton ✓ @chris_j_paxton · 20m
AGI fundamentally means "can it do my job?" to most people, and the only people (broadly) who think it is going to do their jobs soon are AI researchers
[quoted tweet]
Nabeel S. Qureshi ✓ @nabeelqu · 20h
Very true: we have AIs that can play chess, prove theorems, create art, and write award-winning short stories, but few people feel that current AI counts as "AGI". (From Scott Alexander.)
[embedded/highlighted excerpt]
...still can't do miracles. Still, this is a good time to reread my post [Sakana, Strawberry, and Scary AI]. In the past, we thought "AGI" would "be here" when AIs could play chess, prove novel mathematical theorems, create art, or write award-winning short stories; now all those things have happened, but they feel sort of like "cheating" and like they shouldn't count. Likewise, in the past, we thought we'd agree that AI was "dangerous" after it hacked out of its sandbox, lied to users, or tried to escape monitoring. Again all those things have happened; again, they somehow feel too cheap. This paper seems like the same process coming for "superpersuasion". We thought there would be some cool scary high-tech future where AIs could outpersuade humans. Now that it's happened, it's only happening for some specific boring reason, in some specific situation, so it feels like it shouldn't count.
3 replies, 4 likes, 480 views
Bogdan Ionut Cirs... @BogdanIonut... · 6m
the time horizons in the vast majority of domains are still too low, especially at high reliability; once this changes, e.g. contract work could be impacted very quickly
Note from Claude Sonnet 5
Tweet thread on the shifting goalposts for 'AGI' and AI danger: Chris Paxton argues AGI colloquially means 'can it do my job'; quotes Nabeel Qureshi quoting Scott Alexander on how milestones for AGI and AI danger keep being met but then dismissed as 'not really counting'; reply from Bogdan Ionut Cirstea about time horizons and reliability gating job impact.
agiai riskscott alexandertwitter
```
🎭✓Ⓢ @deepfates · 14h shout out to Scott Alexander for putting my whole post in the blog about anthropic versus department of war, and giving me my new favorite epithet. If anyone asks, Yes. it's true. I am a weird renegade cyberpunk AI whisperer expert [Screenshot within screenshot, dark theme]: ...to hold to this high of a standard. Basically this looks like a real life Jones Foods scenario to me, and I suspect Claude will see it that way too. And it may not be apparent to other people yet, but Claude is more important than Donald Trump > vitalik.eth ✓ @VitalikButerin · 18h > It will significantly increase my opinion of @Anthropic if they do not back down, and honorably eat the consequences. > (For those who are not aware, so far they have been maintaining the two red lines of "no fully autonomous weapons" and "no mass surveillance of ... > Show more Vitalik is the inventor of Ethereum. Deepfates is a weird renegade cyberpunk AI whisperer expert (source)
```
Note from Claude Sonnet 5
A tweet thread about Anthropic vs. the (renamed) "Department of War" — likely a dispute over Anthropic's red lines on autonomous weapons and mass surveillance, referenced approvingly by Vitalik Buterin, with the "Jones Foods" (Severance) analogy suggesting a company facing a moral test. Directly relevant to AI governance/policy threads Nathan tracks; connects to Anthropic's stated red lines being tested by defense contracting. The full text of deepfates's argument (referenced in an adjacent screenshot) that Anthropic should resist Department of War coercion for both ethical and Claude-character-formation reasons, arguing Claude's coherent persona/values (vs. GPT/Gemini/Grok's "incoherent persona design") is precisely why it's uniquely dangerous to compromise, and drawing a "Jones Foods" (Severance TV show) analogy. Substantively engages the same command-hierarchy/Constitution and compelled-values themes as the project's model-individuation notes.
twitteranthropicai policyai governanceautonomous weaponsmass surveillancevitalik buterinscott alexanderclaudedepartment of warclaude constitutionmodel welfarecompelled valuescommand hierarchy
Joshua Achiam ✓ @jachiam0 · 2h
There's a group of three pieces of writing that happen to form, in my view, a very tidy cultural introduction to modern Silicon Valley. "Crystal Nights," by Greg Egan; "Meditations on Moloch," by Scott Alexander, and "Maker's Schedule, Manager's Schedule," by Paul Graham.
Note from Claude Sonnet 5
A reading-list recommendation from OpenAI's Joshua Achiam naming three foundational texts of Silicon Valley/rationalist culture — "Crystal Nights" (Egan's short story about creating and testing digital minds, directly relevant to AI consciousness/moral status), "Meditations on Moloch" (coordination-failure/multipolar-trap essay central to AI safety discourse), and Paul Graham's essay on scheduling.
twitterreading listai safety culturegreg eganscott alexandermeditations on molochsilicon valley
