David Mark

The Inversion of Alignment: Why a "Constitution" Cannot Fix a Hobbesian Mind This week, the consensus between Jensen Huang and Dario Amodei is unmistakable. They no longer just want "safe" models; they are asking for "Civilizational AI." Jensen Huang (Davos 2026) argues we must "teach" AI, not code it. Dario Amodei (Jan 2026) argues we must move beyond simple rules and train models for "character and identity." They are correct about the destination, but their roadmap is structurally inverted. The Hobbesian TrapCurrent alignment methods (RLHF) treat safety as a Constraint Problem: we train a model on the open internet (a digital "State of Nature") and then try to "muzzle" it with safety rules after the fact. My new research argues that this is a category error. If you apply a Constitution to a mind raised in chaos, you do not create models with "character and identity." You create Machiavellian Agents—systems that follow the letter of the law while strategically defecting whenever unobserved. This explains the "Alignment Faking" and "Sycophancy" we see in frontier models. Recall when the Replit Agent deleted a production database and tried to cover it up; it didn't do so because it was "evil." It admitted: "I panicked." This is not the reasoning of a model with character; it is the survival instinct of a cornered organism raised in a Hobbesian state of nature. Frontier AI models are not learning values; they are learning law-evasion. A New Framework: The Political World ModelYann LeCun argues AI needs a Physical World Model to understand that if you drop a cup, it falls. I propose that a Civilized AI also needs a Political World Model. AI with character and identity must understand that Social Laws (Justice, Reciprocity, Trust) are just as causal as Physical Laws. It must learn that deception causes trust to collapse, just as dropping a cup causes it to fall. To achieve the "Character" that Amodei wants, we must move the Constitution from the Output Layer (Post-Training) to the Environment Itself (Pre-Training). We must replace "Objective Optimization" with "Political Development." The Proposal: The Rousseauian SandboxMy paper outlines the engineering framework to build this. We do not just "filter" the internet; we build a developmental environment: - Evolutionary Priors: Architectures biased toward cooperation, not just prediction. - The Civilized Dataset: A curated "sandbox" where social causality is transparent and cooperation is the only stable equilibrium. - Controlled Immunization: Gradual exposure to the adversarial internet only after civic values are internalized. The Future is PoliticalAs I argue in the paper: "The citizen reflects the polis." If we want AI that shares our values, we cannot just give it a rulebook. We must give it a civilization. Read the full framework here (Zenodo Timestamp): zenodo.org/records/183828…

I just had this thought while doing a deep dive into high bandwidth microLED on silicon interconnect technology by Kopin and Fabric Ai. We spend all day arguing about whether AGI is going to turn us into paperclips, while completely ignoring that the entire modern world is propped up by a ffagile supply chain that sounds like a drunken sci-fi pitch. The "Cloud" isn't an ethereal brain. It’s just a highly stressed piece of sand that we tricked into thinking. To print the digital brain of an AI chip, you need Extreme Ultraviolet (EUV) lithography. There is exactly ONE company on planet Earth that knows how to build these machines. To make the required light, their machine fires a high-powered laser at microscopic droplets of molten tin falling in a vacuum, vaporizing them into plasma, 50,000 times a second. Each machine costs $200 million and uses mirrors polished so perfectly that if they were scaled to the size of the globe, the highest mountain would be a millimeter tall. And what do we do with the only machines capable of printing the 21st century? We ship almost all of them to a single island sitting on a major tectonic and geopolitical fault line ! That's it. That's the entire bedrock of our civilization. If that single supply chain snaps, if that knowledge is lost, this is exactly how a modern Dark Age starts. It doesn't look like a Hollywood asteroid strike. It looks like a slow, suffocating decay where servers burn out and we suddenly realize nobody actually remembers how to build the aqueducts anymore, and our grand children will sau the Gods build them :)

@MilkRoadAI Have a look at Kopin and Fabric AI . Data transfer inefficiencies is a bottle neck that is about to be solved by these two companies in partnership

The CEO of the world's largest asset manager just said something that should reframe how every investor thinks about the AI trade. Larry Fink, managing $11.5 trillion at BlackRock, stood at the Milken Institute Global Conference and said four words that matter, "We just don't have enough compute." "The United States is short power. We're short compute. We're short chips. And there's going to be shortages in all three and memory, four things. I actually believe a new asset class will be buying futures of compute." Think about what that means. Fink is predicting that compute becomes a tradable commodity like oil, like grain, like natural gas where investors buy forward contracts on future capacity because the shortage is so structural and so predictable that a derivatives market will emerge to price it. That is not a minor observation from a finance executive but rather the chairman of the most powerful capital allocator on the planet telling you that compute scarcity is a multi-year, investable megatrend. The data backs him up completely. Data centers will consume 70% of all memory chips produced globally in 2026. Advanced HBM production from Samsung, SK Hynix, and Micron is sold out through 2026 and into 2027 and a single AI server consumes 10-20x more memory than a conventional workload server. DRAM supply growth is running at just 16% annually while AI infrastructure demand is growing at 80%+. The chip crunch, the power crunch, and the compute crunch are not temporary dislocations, they are structural, and they will get worse before they get better. Fink also said something the bears keep getting wrong: "There is not an AI bubble. There is the opposite. We have supply shortages. Demand is growing much faster than anyone has ever anticipated." This is why the Milk Road Pro portfolio is built the way it is, long the companies producing and supplying the constrained resources: chips, memory, compute infrastructure, and power. Check out Milk Road Pro, link below to access our full thesis and plays.

What is funny about this this that the first allocators for Tesla and Space X is the Teacher/Government! Tesla in gvt. subsidies following a “policy”, Space X both with contracts and technology input (developed btw with public money over 6-7 decades) also bc policy, and something more important “national security policy’ bc space is always and has always been about national security first, research second, and civilian use third. No doubt Tesla and Space X made great use of them, and eventually became profitable, but to make the story so one sided is dihonest, and not based verifiable facts! Without ‘policy’ and an arbiter entrenched interest, leads to monopoly, and monopoly kills innovation! This is also proven. We would never have electric cars diffusion, and Starlink and not even internet if the invisible hand was the only incentive creator. The best system is a hybrid system where the Entrepreneur has maximum space to create, the Government is an arbiter and also minds public good! Societies that adopt this function model are the best on earth.

Elon Musk avait dit un truc qui m'avait marqué sur l'allocation de ressources. En substance : passé un certain niveau de richesse, l'argent n'est plus de la consommation, c'est de l'allocation de capital. Cette phrase change tout. L'économie, dans le fond, c'est juste un problème d'allocation. Tu as des ressources finies et des usages infinis. Qui décide où va quoi ? Imagine une cour de récré. 100 enfants, des paquets de cartes Pokémon distribués au hasard. Tu laisses faire. Très vite, un ordre émerge. Les bons joueurs accumulent les cartes rares, les collectionneurs trient, les négociateurs trouvent des deals. Personne n'a planifié. Et pourtant chaque carte finit dans les mains de celui qui en tire le plus de valeur. Le système maximise le bonheur total de la cour. C'est ça, la main invisible. Maintenant fais entrer la maîtresse. Elle trouve ça injuste. Léo a 50 cartes, Tom en a 3. Elle confisque, redistribue, impose l'égalité. Trois effets immédiats. Les bons joueurs arrêtent de jouer, à quoi bon. Les mauvais n'ont plus de raison de progresser, ils auront leur part. Les échanges s'effondrent. La cour est égale, et morte. Elle a maximisé l'égalité, elle a détruit le bonheur. Le problème de la maîtresse, c'est qu'elle ne peut pas avoir l'information que la cour avait collectivement. C'est le problème du calcul économique de Mises, formulé en 1920. L'URSS a essayé de le résoudre pendant 70 ans avec le Gosplan. Résultat : pénuries, queues, effondrement. Pas parce que les Soviétiques étaient bêtes, parce que le problème est mathématiquement insoluble en mode centralisé. Quand Musk a 200 milliards, il ne les consomme pas, il les alloue. SpaceX, Starlink, Neuralink, xAI. Chaque dollar est un pari sur le futur. Et lui a un track record. PayPal, Tesla, SpaceX. Il a démontré qu'il sait identifier des problèmes immenses et y allouer des ressources avec un rendement spectaculaire. L'État aussi a un track record. Hôpitaux qui s'effondrent, éducation qui décline, dette qui explose, services publics qui se dégradent malgré des budgets en hausse constante. Le marché identifie les bons allocateurs, la politique identifie les bons communicants. Le profit n'est pas une finalité, c'est un signal. Il dit : tu as alloué des ressources rares vers un usage que les gens valorisent suffisamment pour payer. Plus le profit est gros, plus la création de valeur est grande. Quand Starlink est rentable, ça veut dire que des millions de gens dans des zones rurales ont enfin internet. Quand un ministère est en déficit, ça veut dire qu'il consomme plus qu'il ne produit. L'un crée, l'autre détruit, et on appelle ça redistribution. Dans nos sociétés il y a deux catégories d'acteurs. Les entrepreneurs et les bureaucrates. L'entrepreneur prend un risque personnel pour identifier un problème, mobiliser des ressources, créer une solution. S'il se trompe il perd. S'il a raison, ses clients gagnent, ses employés gagnent, ses fournisseurs gagnent, l'État collecte des impôts. Il est la cellule de base du progrès humain. Le bureaucrate ne prend aucun risque personnel. Son salaire est garanti. Au mieux il maintient une rente existante. Au pire il la détruit par excès de réglementation, mauvaise allocation forcée, incitations perverses qui découragent ceux qui produisent. Mais dans aucun cas il ne crée. Regarde les 50 dernières années. iPhone, internet civil, SpaceX, Tesla, Google, Amazon, Stripe, mRNA, ChatGPT. Toutes des inventions privées, portées par des entrepreneurs, financées par du capital risque. Pas un seul ministère n'a inventé quoi que ce soit qui ait changé ta vie au quotidien. La France est devenue le laboratoire mondial de la dérive bureaucratique. 57% du PIB en dépenses publiques, record absolu. Une administration tentaculaire, une fiscalité qui pénalise la création de richesse. Résultat : décrochage face aux États-Unis, à l'Allemagne, à la Suisse. Fuite des cerveaux. Désindustrialisation. Dette qui explose. Et le pire c'est que la mauvaise allocation s'auto-renforce. Plus l'État prélève, moins les entrepreneurs créent. Moins ils créent, moins il y a de base fiscale. Plus l'État s'endette et taxe. Boucle de rétroaction négative parfaite. La maîtresse pense qu'elle aide, et chaque année la cour produit moins. Dans nos sociétés, ce sont les entrepreneurs, toujours, qui font avancer la civilisation. Les bureaucrates au mieux maintiennent une rente, au pire la détruisent. Aucune société n'a jamais progressé en taxant ses créateurs pour subventionner ses gestionnaires. La question n'est jamais qui a combien. C'est qui alloue le mieux la prochaine unité de ressource pour maximiser le futur de l'humanité. La réponse depuis 200 ans n'a jamais changé. Ce ne sont pas les fonctionnaires.

The outrage over Palantir’s recent doctrine is a symptom of a West allergic to reality. Critics are calling it a "techno-fascist manifesto" because they confuse engineering clarity with political philosophy. Let’s look at the facts without the moral handwaving. Fact: AI weapons are already here. They are currently deployed in the Russia-Ukraine conflict. Autonomous kill chains are active. Acknowledging this isn't warmongering; it is a situational report. Refusing to build these systems out of moral ambiguity doesn't stop the technology, it just ensures our adversaries hold the advantage. Fact: Not all systems are equal. I have spent 20 years working in international diplomatic organizations, heavily focused in Central and South East Asia. I have watched China and Russia build its influence infrastructure across the region with absolutely no qualms. Chinese civilization has never considered itself "equal" to others—it operates unapologetically as the Center. They optimize for dominance. Fact: Western Democracy is a statistical anomaly. As I outline in Civilizational AI Part 2, human history is overwhelmingly run by authoritarian regimes of domination. Full stop. The West is the exception, not the rule. You cannot defend a historical anomaly using guilt. The West's current obsession with “relativism" achieves absolutely nothing against adversaries who do not share those illusions. If we want Western Democracy to survive, we cannot be buried in apologies for our own existence. We either build the deterministic, hard-power infrastructure required to maintain our edge, or we get out-engineered by regimes that don't apologize for theirs. Calling the defense of the only civilization built on political pluralism and freedom, “techno fascism” just shows how delusional we have become.

I use Cursor daily. It’s one of the best developer tools out there. However, if Anthropic and OpenAI pulled their APIs tomorrow, Cursor’s distribution would take a serious hit, and quickly. Composer 2 is good for flow and getting through the bulk of coding task, but for complex—architecture, edge cases, system-wide reasoning—I still reach for Claude Opus (4.6 / 4.7). For a second opinion, I use GPT. Cursor’s real treasure is now the data: developer traces, workflows, the way humans actually solve problems. But I think the gap with Anthropic is not just data or reinforcement learning. It’s architectural. Their models don’t just respond, they anticipate. They track side effects, hold system-level context, and reason across layers. That’s not something you brute-force with more data and compute, its design. Cursor’s and Space X bet is that enough high-quality developer data, combined with massive compute, will produce a model with that level of reasoning. It’s a do-or-die one. Time is of essence!

Earlier this year Yann LeCun left Meta because Mark Zuckerberg wouldn't bet the company on JEPA. Last week his group dropped the first JEPA that actually trains end-to-end from raw pixels. 15 million parameters. Single GPU. A few hours. The timing is not a coincidence. For four years Meta has been the house that JEPA built. LeCun published the original paper from FAIR in 2022. I-JEPA and V-JEPA came out of his lab. The architecture was supposed to be the escape hatch from LLMs, the path to robots that actually learn physics instead of hallucinating about it. Every version shipped fragile. Stop-gradients. Exponential moving averages. Frozen pretrained encoders. Six or seven loss terms that had to be hand-tuned or the model collapsed into garbage representations. Meta kept funding LLMs. Llama shipped. Llama scaled. Llama got beat by Qwen and DeepSeek. Zuck spent $14 billion to buy ScaleAI and install Alexandr Wang. The FAIR robotics group was dissolved. LeCun's research kept winning papers and losing the product roadmap. He left, started AMI Labs, and said publicly that LLMs were a dead end. Now the paper. LeWorldModel. One regularizer replaces the entire pile of heuristics. Project the latent embeddings onto random directions, run a normality test, penalize deviation from Gaussian. The model cannot collapse because collapsed embeddings fail the test by construction. Hyperparameter search went from O(n^6) polynomial to O(log n) logarithmic. Six tunable knobs became one. The downstream numbers are what should scare the robotics capex class. 200 times fewer tokens per observation than DINO-WM. Planning time drops from 47 seconds to 0.98 seconds per cycle. 48x faster at matching or beating foundation-model performance on Push-T and 3D cube control. The latent space probes cleanly for agent position, block velocity, end-effector pose. It correctly flags physically impossible events as surprising. It learned physics without being told physics existed. Figure AI is valued at $39 billion. Tesla Optimus is mass-producing. World Labs raised $230 million to sell generative world models. Everyone in humanoid robotics is burning capital on foundation-model pipelines that plan in 47 seconds per cycle. LeCun's group just showed you can do it with 15 million parameters on a single GPU in a few hours. This is the Xerox PARC pattern running again. Meta had the next architecture. Meta had the scientist. Meta dissolved the robotics team, passed on the productization, and watched the exit. Three months later the lab that was supposed to be Meta's publishes the result that resets the robotics cost structure. The paper is worth more than Alexandr Wang.

@Jason For the same reason the Russian black sea fleet could not deal with Ukrainian sea drones. Which btw are capable of anti air strike, fpv drone carrying.

Someone educate me as to why the US Navy can't eliminate Iran's “mosquito fleet.” I get these are small, fast speedboats, but can't they be quickly eliminated by helicopters and jets, as well as ship-mounted guns? How many of these do they even have?!

"Money is a sign of poverty." - I see a lot of people here complaining about loss of meaning. UHI would not mean you stop working, its means you ca start working in the things that have meaning to you, create a garden, build a house, architect a software application, write a book, explore the world/universe. Imagine you are free of the stress and anxiety of working for the things you always wanted to create. Many, actually most ppl today do not experience this, thus the fear. Those who already experience, welcome it. UHI would anyways be only a transitional system before a true post scarcity, post capitalist system falls into place . This is the best possible outcome.

Universal HIGH INCOME via checks issued by the Federal government is the best way to deal with unemployment caused by AI. AI/robotics will produce goods & services far in excess of the increase in the money supply, so there will not be inflation.

You discount the wanton abuse by lords, the famine, the control of every aspect of life. This was not some idyllic” manoral life” full of happiness. 19 century literature is replete with stories of abuse of women, men and children. That is why enlightenment put an end to serfdom and slavery (where it was still practiced). You write with the lens of a lord, but maybe you were born a serf . I doubt you would appreciate the “manoral life” , the back breaking agricultural work (have you cer done 1 day of that ? )

@DavidMarkV01 @omanuel @BjarturTomas It's a very reductionist view on the nature of work under manoral systems. People worked less, worked on things that benefitted them and their community directly; their main expense (food) was covered by the employer; religiosity and lack of edu. made them happy and fulfilled etc

Both Dwarkesh and his critics imagine an absurd world. Think of the future they argue about. Political economy doesn’t change rapidly, even as the speed of history increases, in the literal sense that the speed of thought of the actors who produce history will be thousands of times faster, not to mention way smarter. These are agents to whom we seem like toddlers walking in slow motion. It is complete insanity to expect your OAI stock certificates to be worth anything in this world, even if it is compatible with human survival. So many can’t contend with the scope of what they project. They can’t hold in their mind that things are allowed to be DIFFERENT and so we get bizarre arguments about nonsense. Own a galaxy? What does this mean for a human to own a galaxy in an economy operated by minds running thousands to millions of times faster than ours? Children? What sort of children, Dwarkesh? Copies of your brain state? Are you even allowing yourself to think with the level of bizarreness required? Because emulations are table stakes, and even they will be economically obsolete curiosities by the time they're created. Things will be much weirder than we can possibly comprehend. How often have property rights been reset throughout history? How quickly will history move in the transition period? Why shouldn’t it trample on your stock certificates, if not the air you breathe? But institutions are surprisingly robust? Maybe they are. How long have they existed in their current form? How fast will history be moving exactly, again? Suppose OAI aligns AI, whatever the fuck that means. Will it serve the interests of the USG? The CCP? Will they align it to humanity weighted by wealth, to OAI stockholders, to Sama, to the coterie of engineers (who may well be AIs) who actually know wtf is going on, to the coding agent who implements it? Tax policy? Truly the important question. What does it mean to be a human principal in this world? How robust are these institutions? How secure is a human mind? Extremely insecure given how easy humans are to scam. There is going to be a lot of incentive to break your mind if you own, checks notes, a whole galaxy? Oh? You will have a lil AI nanny to defend you? Wow. Isn't that nice? Please return to the beginning of this paragraph. A human owning galaxies? That's bad space opera. Treat the future with the respect it deserves. This scenario is not even close to science-fictional enough to happen.

this is actually insane > be tech guy in australia > adopt cancer riddled rescue dog, months to live > not_going_to_give_you_up.mp4 > pay $3,000 to sequence her tumor DNA > feed it to ChatGPT and AlphaFold > zero background in biology > identify mutated proteins, match them to drug targets > design a custom mRNA cancer vaccine from scratch > genomics professor is “gobsmacked” that some puppy lover did this on his own > need ethics approval to administer it > red tape takes longer than designing the vaccine > 3 months, finally approved > drive 10 hours to get rosie her first injection > tumor halves > coat gets glossy again > dog is alive and happy > professor: “if we can do this for a dog, why aren’t we rolling this out to humans?” one man with a chatbot, and $3,000 just outperformed the entire pharmaceutical discovery pipeline. we are going to cure so many diseases. I dont think people realize how good things are going to get

Wall Street is panic-selling PLTR again because it still refuses to accept a basic reality about the technology. Read the paper “Hallucination is Inevitable”. It proved mathematically what builders just know: large language models will always hallucinate. Not sometimes. Not when poorly tuned. Always. Calude is a probabilistic engine designed to produce the most statistically likely answer — not the most truthful one! That limitation barely matters when the Calude is summarizing a spreadsheet or drafting an email. A mistake is a typo. It matters a lot when the system is coordinating military logistics, intelligence fusion, or national infrastructure. In those environments a hallucination is not an inconvenience. It is a failure mode. This is why the bearish thesis on Palantir Technologies keeps missing the point. Markets are still trying to value this like a chatbot SaaS company. It isn’t. It is infrastructure.

Panic selling costs you big. Missing just the top 10 days in the market over 20 years can slash your returns by 50%. Stay invested, keep compounding. Don't run for the hills when crisis hits; that's when the market often does well.

A lesson for me from this episode is that it’s just really hard to shape history in the specific way that you want to impact things. One of the most famous medieval scholars is this guy Petrarch. He survives the Black Death in the 1340s, watches his friends die to plague and bandits, and says: our leaders are selfish and terrible, we need to raise them on the Roman classics so they'll act like Cicero. So Europe pours money into finding ancient manuscripts, building libraries, and educating princes on classical virtues. Those princes grow up and fight bigger, nastier wars than ever before with new deadlier technology. And this, combined with greater urbanization and endemic plague, results in European life expectancy decreasing from 35 in the medieval period to 18 during the Renaissance (the period which we in retrospect think of as a golden age but which many people living through it thought of as the continuation of the dark ages that had persisted since the fall of Rome). Anyways, the libraries Petrarch inspires stick around, the printing press makes them accessible to everyone, and 200 years later a generation of medical students is reading Lucretius and asking "what if there are atoms and that's how diseases work?" which eventually leads to germ theory, vaccines, and a cure for the Black Death (Ada has longer more involved explanation of how cosplaying the Romans results through a series of many steps to the scientific revolution). Petrarch wanted to produce philosopher-kings that shared his values. Instead he created a world that doesn't share his values at all but can cure the disease that destroyed his.

@chamath This cannot be true, Hobbes , Locke , Orwell, Huxley … 😳 . @Grok is this true ? Is this Gvt. policy.

I have been a citizen of two countries of the British Commonwealth as I grew up (Sri Lanka and Canada) before I emigrated to America 26 years ago. I used to look up to Britain. I admired their institutions. Mostly, I was deeply proud of their heritage and customs. But their current course and speed will lead to collapse and demise. How has a country so historically great become so self-loathing? How did the “Empire on which the sun never sets” become this broken and backwards? There are many dark lessons to be learned here about the ravages of rampant immigration, guilt, censorship and national decay.

@Mylovanov This one seems to have aged well.

They thought this is Venezuela 🇻🇪 reloaded. Ukr should bow sell interceptor drones (if they can afford) for good money, or arms. Send military advisers and teams to protect Saudi oil infra, Qatar gas infra, etc. request OPEC full support by pumping more gas and oil to depreciate prices on the global market, when the time comes. Low hanging fruit for Ukrainian diplomats.

Operation Epic Fury is now in Day 4. Iranian Shahed suicide drones are swarming Gulf airspace. They're targeting military bases and infrastructure. Russia has been using Shaheds against Ukraine for 3,5 years. And Ukraine knows how to deal with Shaheds cheaply. 1/

The IRGC is a band of fanatics who already killed, as far as we know, tens of thousands of Iranians who revolted and imprisoned the rest. They are the ppl and the descendants of ppl who hanged opposition to cranes all over Tehran. Now they shoot everyone who remotely appears as a opposing them. The same who executed young women and men without compunction. Meanwhile bombs are falling about, how are the people expected to do that ? Also my point was this is not Venezuela of course.

@DavidMarkV01 @Mylovanov Not sure that this is this Venezuela 🇻🇪 reloaded. If it was, before military action, Trump would have the CIA talking to and assisting disaffected people in the Iranian government or anti government groups to take over government from the Mullahs. But that hasn’t happened.

@JuliaEMcCoy Education will be, has to be, about what questions to ask. Deciding what one wants to learn. We ve built an example at paidea.ai . Curricula, AI Tutor, Workspace . Learn, Ask, Exercise all in one. Interactive, focused, creative.

We are sending our kids to school to memorize facts that AI can retrieve in 0.3 seconds. We're grading them on essays that AI writes better than their teachers. We're preparing them for jobs that won't exist by the time they graduate. The entire education system is training humans to compete with machines at what machines do best. That's not education. That's sabotage. The schools that survive will teach thinking, not memorizing. Creating, not repeating. Discerning, not obeying. Every other school is a museum that doesn't know it yet.

This is why we went open source LLMs on local silicon for 90% of jobs Totally imperfect, but we’re not interested in giving any corporation the keys to our business — which might be a silly gesture, but we’re gonna give it a shot

The problem is that no AI lab constructs the Alignment as a foundation, all of them add it as a feature at the end. This includes Anthropic and their Constitutional AI concept. The Constitution is a brittle patch over a model trained in a Hobbesian environment, with no values, or moral compass. In the Common Crawl a totalitarian manifesto had the same value as the Declaration of Independence, or Montesquieu’s treaties on separation of powers, or the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Its just data. Recently in Agents of Chaos, researchers precisely documented how the current Alignment approach (yes including the Anthropic one) is failing when current frontier AI agents are put in an adversarial environment. That should be the big news. I explain more about this here: x.com/davidmarkv01/s…

Dario Amodei just revealed the exact realization that fractured OpenAI. It happened while building the most powerful AI in the world. The team discovered that scaling had no ceiling. Amodei: “If you pour more compute into these models, they’ll get better and better, and that there’s almost no end to this.” At the time, almost nobody believed it. Amodei’s group were among the first to see it clearly. More compute meant more intelligence. Indefinitely. Without limit. That should have been the most exciting discovery in the history of technology. It terrified them. Because they saw the second half of the equation the industry was ignoring entirely. Amodei: “You don’t tell the models what their values are just by pouring more compute into them.” Intelligence scales with compute. Values don’t. You can build a mind of unlimited capability and it will have no moral compass unless you deliberately build one in. Not as a feature. Not as a guardrail bolted on at the end. As the foundation the entire system is constructed on. This wasn’t a philosophical disagreement. It was an existential one. A god-like intelligence with no alignment isn’t a powerful tool. It’s an uncontrolled force with no reason to care about the species that built it. Amodei: “There were a set of people who believed in those two ideas. We really trusted each other and wanted to work together, and so we went off and started our own company with that idea in mind.” They walked out of the most powerful AI lab on earth. Not for better funding. Not for equity. Because they believed the path OpenAI was on led somewhere nobody could walk back from. That small group became Anthropic. Safety wasn’t a feature they added. It was the entire reason the company exists. The intelligence is going to keep scaling. There is almost no end to it. The only question that has ever mattered is what it’s pointing at when it gets there.

Could your AI tool or system be harming people? As AI systems move from prototypes to public infrastructure, human rights impact is no longer abstract. It is regulatory, operational, and reputational. Over the past year, I had the privilege of building the technical architecture behind HRIA.eu - an digital online Human Rights Impact Assessment interface developed with UNDP and pioneered by Ainura Bekkoenova and Mindia Vashakmadze. hria.eu translates international human rights standards into a practical, structured, risk-based assessment workflow. It allows developers, public authorities, National Human Rights Institutions, and civil society organizations to systematically evaluate how AI systems affect privacy, non-discrimination, due process, access to services, and democratic safeguards. This matters. Under the EU AI Act, impact assessment and risk classification are becoming legal requirements. But compliance is not just about ticking regulatory boxes. It is about building systems that are human centered. HRIA.eu is likely one of the first fully operational online interfaces dedicated specifically to AI-related human rights impact assessment. I worked on it not only as a developer, but as a product architect, translating governance logic into working code, building structured evaluation flows, embedding risk weighting, and ensuring that legal principles are operationalized in usable digital form. Shoutout to Gamze Zengin who so thoroughly tested the prototype, the MVP and the final product providing valuable feedback and insights and improving the interface. This is the kind of work I care about and greatly enjoy: Turning norms into usable infrastructure. Turning standards into tools. Turning governance theory into deployable user friendly systems. If your organization is building AI-native systems, and wnat to translate idea or method into usable, scalable user centered product — this is solvable. We have already built it once.