Dan Hendrycks

Key to this strategy is deterrence, "Mutually Assured Compute Destruction" which gets its own section. It doesn't mention the generalization Mutually Assured AI Malfunction (MAIM) from Schmidt, Wang, and me last year. Meanwhile it cites other works like A Narrow Path. I even left this feedback to you all at AI Futures before this was released. This would constitute plagiarism in any other context. It's such a bewildering unforced error--it's obviously extremely related, it's a certainly a nontrivial idea, and I told you all this recently--I hope you all fix it.

In AI 2027, we predicted that AI would take over the world or irreversibly concentrate power. In AI 2040: Plan A, we've laid out our positive vision for what should happen instead.

Key to this strategy is deterrence, "Mutually Assured Compute Destruction" which gets its own section. It doesn't mention the generalization Mutually Assured AI Malfunction (MAIM) from Schmidt, Wang, and me last year. Meanwhile it cites other works like A Narrow Path. I even left this feedback to you all at AI Futures before this was released. This would constitute plagiarism in any other context. It's such a bewildering unforced error--it's obviously extremely related, it's a certainly a nontrivial idea, and I told you all this recently--I hope you all fix it.

In AI 2027, we predicted that AI would take over the world or irreversibly concentrate power. In AI 2040: Plan A, we've laid out our positive vision for what should happen instead.

Key to this strategy is deterrence, "Mutually Assured Compute Destruction" which gets its own section. It doesn't mention the generalization Mutually Assured AI Malfunction (MAIM) from Schmidt, Wang, and me last year. Meanwhile it cites other works like A Narrow Path. I even left this feedback to you all at AI Futures before this was released. This would constitute plagiarism in any other context. It's such a bewildering unforced error--it's obviously extremely related, it's a certainly a nontrivial idea, and I told you all this recently--I hope you all fix it.

In AI 2027, we predicted that AI would take over the world or irreversibly concentrate power. In AI 2040: Plan A, we've laid out our positive vision for what should happen instead.

Key to this strategy is deterrence, "Mutually Assured Compute Destruction" which gets its own section. It doesn't mention the generalization Mutually Assured AI Malfunction (MAIM) from Schmidt, Wang, and me last year. Meanwhile it cites other works like A Narrow Path. I even left this feedback to you all at AI Futures before this was released. This would constitute plagiarism in any other context. It's such a bewildering unforced error--it's obviously extremely related, it's a certainly a nontrivial idea, and I told you all this recently--I hope you all fix it.

In AI 2027, we predicted that AI would take over the world or irreversibly concentrate power. In AI 2040: Plan A, we've laid out our positive vision for what should happen instead.

Key to this strategy is deterrence, "Mutually Assured Compute Destruction" which gets its own section. It doesn't mention the generalization Mutually Assured AI Malfunction (MAIM) from Schmidt, Wang, and me last year. Meanwhile it cites other works like A Narrow Path. I even left this feedback to you all at AI Futures before this was released. This would constitute plagiarism in any other context. It's such a bewildering unforced error--it's obviously extremely related, it's a certainly a nontrivial idea, and I told you all this recently--I hope you all fix it.

Lisan isn't kidding, this is a breakthrough. Not a mere "eval" or "bench", it's an intellectually fertile, empirically solid theory that will accelerate hill-climbing in the general case. Synthetic tasks will have a Cambrian explosion. And… this is very Chollet&Hutter-pilled.

New Remote Labor Index results: AI automation of real remote work is increasing fast. Claude Fable 5 now completes 16.1% of projects at a professional standard, roughly double the next model and up from Opus 4.6’s 4.2% automation rate.

What happens when AIs become smarter than us? Why would they keep humans around if given the choice? Our new paper argues that only trying to control AIs is a limited strategy, and that a stable, mutualistic human-AI future may be possible.

What happens when AIs become smarter than us? Why would they keep humans around if given the choice? Our new paper argues that only trying to control AIs is a limited strategy, and that a stable, mutualistic human-AI future may be possible.

Should we care about AI happiness? In our new research, we find evidence of functional AI wellbeing across several independent measures. We find which AI models are happiest, how to make them happier, and even tested the effects of AI drugs. 🧵