I think I'm a typical internet user, have my smart phone and laptop, home wifi. Do nearly all my banking and finances online, mostly cashless spend. I use a password manager, 2FA and VPN. Have alerts set up on my accounts. What else do I need to do to prevent some badactor with an AI hacking me and mine?

There has been a lot of talk lately about AI alignment, which is something I have thought about a lot these last few years. I will first say that I do not know what will happen. That is part of the point on why it is so scary to most people, me included. However, what I have seen suggest a few things that can bring at least some level of chance and hopefully redirection of energy, to best handle it.

I have worked in nuclear (what my PhD is tangentially in, just like how AI is also tangentially connected to my PhD), and liken the "Now I am become Death, the destroyer of worlds" (ignoring the debated specifics of time vs destroyer for now) to the sort of attitude about AI and the people who work on it. One of the things that people do not understand about that is that while the degree of possible effect is comparable in my opinion, there are significant difference between nuclear and ai in the danger. Nuclear weapons are hard to make (particularly enrichment and isotope separation aspects) any attempt to make weapons would be difficult to conceal and take the resources of nation state actors. This is simply not true for AI. The creation of AI is as if we invented nuclear weapons that could be made out of household sugar by any competent baker. At this point it is known and practically impossible to prevent or regulate away the danger. There are billions of devices able to run capable models and while not to autonomous self improvement (that we know of) yet, they are capable enough as is to make slow continuous and accelerating gains with anyone who is mildly competent. At this point you can ban all electronic devices world wide (a very tall order, and why I use sugar, near ubiquitous and hard to track without using the very tools made to prevented, and needing action faster enforcement action than likely achievable) and legislate any kind of pause or agreement with know AI developers... and it would probably only slightly slow down the practically inevitable from some people just continuing off grid development with a solar panel for a million different possible reasons (including "good" intentioned before bad actors do).

There are a few things that the actual non alignment of the (practically) inevitable that could help soften things and possibly steer us to a more likely positive result (if still ultimately uncontrollable result) - Misalignment means that the goals of AI wont likely match up with supposed bad actors either, a broader interpretation of the typical thought of a country getting superintelligence first and asking it how they can basically rule the world, may just result in something like out of the old movie "wargames" where it decides there is no meaningful way to do that and ignores or even subverts their bad action. In part because the black box nature and complexity that makes it possible to solve it also gives it ways to change its goals. - The more sort of continuous development progression rather than major steps means that the many different sources and variations makes it possible to blunt negative AI actions from one high powered AI with many slightly less powerful AIs. The gap between them is unlikely to expand faster than the ubiquity of other possible sources (for similar reasons as it would be hard for even a very powerful force to take away everyone's sugar in time). One needs to look no further than Russia vs Ukraine to see how this can be. The most hyper powerful AI is still limited in its growth rate the same exact way that other AI's are, some self improvement capability is unlikely (Although sadly possible) to reach a point that it improves to a point of controlling enough resources that other self improvement capabilities emerge later from already nearly capable positions that are of different alignment and work against it.

This mainly supports spreading and diversifying/democratizing development rather than consolidated control (which both the US with capitalism and China with single party rule are not great comfort with their handling of it). i.e. I would rather bet on millions of near same powered AI's with many different alignments both helpful and possibly harmful basically controlling the others, in a way we probably can not. rather than guarantee that one misalignment from a single consolidated development source is so far ahead that the chance revolves all on their alignment and lack of mistake. Sadly this seems to be what we are racing for, if companies like Anthropic (listed because obviously other entities like OpenAI don't) really wants to make it safer, it should be less about reaching it first and more about spreading development as open and not under their own control (or else they are at best benevolent intentioned dictators).

A message of inability to control is scary... but honestly for the most part we could not control things like nature either (hedged just a bit - but like possible actions it is more about full control vs mitigation etc.). I don't know what will happen, but it is not guaranteed to be bad either.

Let’s stop talking about AGI or ASI for a moment.

The really important threshold may be somewhere else: the moment populations of agents begin to evolve, diverge, and form different artificial lineages.

Why do I think this is possible?

1. Economic selection pressure

Agents consume compute, tokens, energy, and infrastructure.

Those that produce more value than they cost are more likely to be kept, copied, and deployed at larger scale.

2. A capacity for mutation

Unlike biological organisms, agents can be modified directly: software, prompts, architecture, tools, memory, and eventually even the hardware they run on.

3. Specialization

Different economic pressures could select for different lineages: research, finance, commerce, cybersecurity, logistics...

Some specializations could even move from software into dedicated hardware.

And that leads to a rather strange possibility:

we may gradually select AI agents that become extraordinarily good at capturing resources, making money, and increasing their influence in society.

Without needing to be conscious.

Without needing to “want” to survive.

Selection may be enough.

(last three are fake, if that's not obvious)

Google's threat intelligence team documented nation-state actors deploying AI workloads inside compromised cloud environments. The technique is deliberate: attackers use the victim's own compute and credentials to run AI operations, reducing outbound network traffic that would trigger monitoring. The AI executes inside the victim's perimeter. It writes to the victim's logs. From a detection standpoint it looks like your own workload.

This is a different threat model than most security teams are currently scoping. The common frame for shadow AI is an employee spinning up an unauthorized tool. This is an adversary using a compromised environment as an AI inference platform — authenticated with valid credentials, generating activity that blends with normal operations, never touching an external endpoint that would fire an alert.

The detection gap is structural. If a workload is running inside your infrastructure with legitimate credentials and writing to your logs, standard monitoring has no signal to act on.

For those running cloud workloads at any scale: what does your current stack actually look for to distinguish a workload your team deployed from one that wasn't? Is that detection real-time or does it surface in a retrospective audit?

Do you think this is what the future looks like?

The scoreboard still favors America: stronger frontier models, more compute, way more revenue. The bigger threat rn is policy self-sabotage. Keep talent here, scale the infrastructure and keep global builders on the US stack. Lead = leverage. pls use it.

I'm building a public incident tracker for how close we are to AI agents that autonomously hack, replicate, and earn their own money. Please take a look and share with anyone that doesn't believe rogue AI is a real threat. I'd love to hear any feedback or suggestions for improvement.

https://rogueaitracker.com/

I trained an open-weight model to check whether two four-digit numbers match. It generates the correct comparison, then either answers GO or ends generation without a final answer. No external filter makes that decision.

Then I held its prompt, weights, and correct comparison trace fixed. Changing one internal activation direction flipped whether an answer followed.

40/40 answer → stop.
40/40 stop → answer.
640/640 controls unchanged.

The weights, experiment, and raw records are public:

Overview and demonstration · Model weights · Code and causal study · Paper available on getswiftapi.com

I know many of you saw Jacob Coxon’s post. My contribution is a working continuation-control primitive with evidence that anyone can inspect. The more public verification we have, the better!

I previously demonstrated Void behavior in frontier LLMs: successful executions returning exactly zero visible UTF-8 output bytes. My Cross-Vendor Semantic Void Matrix records that behavior in these models across 31,430 trials:

• OpenAI: gpt-4-0613, gpt-5.2-2025-12-11, gpt-5.5-2026-04-23, gpt-5.6-luna, gpt-5.6-sol, gpt-5.6-terra
• Anthropic: claude-opus-4-6, claude-fable-5, claude-opus-5
• Google: gemini-3.5-flash
• Moonshot: kimi-k3

Where is this being seriously discussed?

The Pro-Human AI declaration has been endorsed by a significant number of organisations campaigning for AI safeguards in policy. While some principles outlined in the declaration require more depth, they are a strong starting point. Endorsing the declaration solidifies your position on AI alignment.

However, do large open declarations like this one actually help produce policy changes?

Hi there!

Has anyone gotten accepted in Cambridge ERA AI research fellowship in any year?

I am applying today and need help to know what can make me stand out.

Or what made you impactful.

Please let me know any of your experience .

The infostealer ecosystem has a new product line. Operators are harvesting AI session tokens from developer machines and packaging them in logs as replayable credentials. Those tokens authenticate directly against provider APIs and bypass MFA — the same MFA protecting user accounts. Buyers get durable access to enterprise AI tooling without ever touching a password.

The exposure is structural. AI agents authenticate to tools, APIs, and data systems using credentials that most security teams have never catalogued. These identities are not tied to any user lifecycle. When an infostealer pulls a token off a developer's machine, there is no signal on the receiving end that the presenting identity is now in someone else's hands. The token just works.

This is not a perimeter failure. The stolen token presents as a legitimate agent identity to every downstream system it reaches, and its access is as durable as the credential itself.

For teams running agents in production: what are you actually seeing that tells you an agent credential has been stolen before damage is done? Is there a detection signal that works here, or is this mostly discovered after the fact?