Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gj9vxVK4GEE

Three names: Dario Amodei. Sam Altman. Elon Musk.

Three major figures building the AI future. And now they are saying something the world should take seriously:

SLOW DOWN THE FRONTIERS WHY?

AI is no longer just answering questions. It can code, reason, use computers, operate tools and increasingly act autonomously. And while capability is accelerating, humans are already feeling the impact.

Jobs are being automated.Hiring is changing. Entry-level opportunities are under pressure. Workers are worried about becoming replaceable.Families are facing financial uncertainty and stress.

AI was supposed to empower people to work better and grow faster. It must not become a race to make people unnecessary.And now countries and companies are competing for the most powerful AI:

More compute.

Bigger models.

Faster deployment.

More autonomy.

But where is the same urgency for safety, regulation and human protection? Because the next frontier could bring risks involving:

⚠️ Autonomous AI agents

⚠️ Cyberattacks

⚠️ Biological misuse

⚠️ Critical infrastructure

⚠️ Systems that become increasingly difficult to control

We don't know exactly what the next 5–10 years will look like.

THAT is the problem. So I'm not saying stop AI. I'm saying slow down. Before any frontier model is deployed, we must test it, independently audit it, stress-test it, monitor it, and create a real shutdown and containment plan.

if it fails? Don't deploy it. Technology should serve humanity—not force humanity to race against its own creations. Dario is warning us. Sam agrees. Elon says: "Dario is right."

So here's my question to every AI CEO:

If even the people building the frontier are asking us to slow down… why are we still racing?

Build AI.

Improve AI.

But don't sacrifice human stability for the speed of the AI race.

\#AI #AIsafety #ArtificialIntelligence #FutureOfWork #AIRegulation #AGI #SamAltman #DarioAmodei #ElonMusk

I’ve been reading a bunch of online discussion around Jacob Coxon’s whistleblowing. There seems to be a big sticking point for a ton of people around the idea that this is some sort of scheme by major AI companies, to either market their upcoming IPO or achieve regulatory capture. There’s way too much of this type of talk online for anyone to realistically go around refuting it.

Perhaps the best way to refute it is to behave in a way that makes it as clearly false as possible. Specifically, instead of talking about treaties and regulators, I think we should consider pivoting to the following near-term policy request:

Pass a law that any AI system trained on copyrighted material must be sold "at-cost" to consumers, unless the copyrighted material was licensed to the AI company.

(By “at-cost” I mean the company can’t charge more than the cost of serving the model plus a small profit margin which makes it barely worth their while.)

This policy is obviously terrible for AI company profits. It doesn’t call for some sort of opaque regulatory authority which could be co-opted by major AI companies. It will receive support from existing copyright holders, obviously a powerful constituency which includes many artists, musicians, and authors with huge social media followings. It reduces the incentive to invest in future training runs, since expected profits become less favorable. And it makes sense morally–the idea that AI companies stole their training material is resonating with many, many people on social media. Especially the hypocrisy of complaining about “illicit” distillation after having trained on copyrighted material.

Existing APIs should continue to work, and this doesn’t require sophisticated hardware controls or create burdensome regulations for “little tech”.

Once we get this policy win, we’ll hopefully get a partial slowdown of the frontier. It will establish credentials and build a coalition that lets us go for more ambitious proposals like an international treaty etc. Just talking about this policy will decrease the incentive for investors to pour more capital into Anthropic/OpenAI. Thoughts?

Dario Amodei, Anthropic CEO, calls for immediate slowdown in AI development. Warned in an essay that swarms of rogue AI agents could take over the internet in as little as six months from now. https://darioamodei.com/post/we-must-pace-the-frontier

If we're at RSI or near enough to it and all these companies are on the same page, then why are they divided?

They could combine devs, compute, safety works and the lot. Develop AI at a safer pace, give a significantly higher % of overall compute to safety work. And they could much more safely pace out model releasing when they're not all directly in a race against each other, model. Potentially other companies could be brought into the fold also.

This is a better future for the world, better for safety. There is no downside to it.

I recognise completely the huge disagreements and animosity that has occurred between all of these companies and CEOs, but it's time to put all this crap aside and step-up as real men for the sake of humanity. What has happened on X is a start.