Max Tegmark

Here's the pro-human declaration that the AI companies and big parts of the EA movement refuse to endorse: humanstatement.org

My take on the ACTUAL divide in the AI debate: lesswrong.com/posts/zmtqmwet…

Beware: @JordanSchachtel is conflating the (bipartisan) pro-human opposition to Anthropic and other AI companies with Anthropic itself (and its "race to replace" supporters). See link in replies for my detailed analysis of the ACTUAL two sides.

If you are conservative and don't like AI, you are being "harvested" by EA? What an disrespectful and infantalizing attitude to take to @JOEBOTxyz and other people who disagree with you.

@BogdanIonutCir2 No, since it's still not known how to control superintelligence. If superintelligence ultimately kills all humans, we'll technically have cured cancer, but I doubt that's what you're hoping for.

@tegmark 'better tackled with powerful tool AI' - this seems false almost by definition, superintelligence = additional affordances on top of tool AI; you can just argue that superintelligence is probably dangerous and the current approach (racing) is reckless, no need to mislead

The race to superintelligence is IMHO mainly motivated by money and power, not by a plan to cure cancer – which can be better tackled with powerful tool AI:

New AI in Context video, on the New York Times Bestseller If Anyone Builds It, Everyone Dies, and imo it's a banger. Featuring @deanwball , @RepBillFoster and @dwarkesh_sp

"We're racing to superintelligence because we want to cure cancer" is a self-serving lie or rationalization by many top AI companies – here's why:

For context, the son of the woman furthest to the left tragically became another chatbot victim.

Great summary how how AI companions/chatbots can harm kids (she's spent 16 years researching child development & human-machine interactions): C = Compulsion H = Harm I = Impairment L = Loneliness D =Death

Anthropic's Claude helped select hundreds of targets for the opening wave of Iran strikes. There's a good chance that one of them was the elementary school where more than 100 girls died. My latest @NonzeroNews piece. nonzero.org/p/iran-and-the…

It's clear: across the Right and the Left, the American public overwhelmingly prefer a pro-human future, and reject the AI race-to-replace us. The vast majority of American voters: 👉 Back human oversight of AI systems; 👉 Want AI companies held accountable for harms; 👉 Reject fast-and-loose AI development; 👉 Support protecting our children & families from AI systems.

"Though respondents were split neatly down partisan lines in whom they voted for and which party they belonged to, they overwhelmingly supported the statements that appeared in the Declaration, by a wide margin. The worst-performing principles — AI must not create monopolies or concentrate control in a few hands — still garnered 69% support from respondents. The best-performing principle — humans needed to stay in charge of AI and prevent it from harming children, families and communities — won 80% support." ‼️Coverage from @tina_nguyen in @verge on the newly-launched Pro-Human AI Declaration and its incredibly broad support (links below) ⬇️

@perrymetzger China is in the process of banning AI girlfriends to protect their kids, while we're still leaving AI less regulated than sandwiches.

@tegmark No one is racing to replace the human race, but you are racing to assure that the United States loses to China, which will have disastrous consequences for the future.

We're excited to launch the Pro-Human AI Declaration, laying out a more inspiring AI path than Silicon Valley's dystopian race-to-replace. It has remarkably broad support, from Bannon to Bengio, from unions to faith groups, from parents to NatSec leaders. Please join our growing movement and let's make a difference! (Links below in replies)

* Article: theverge.com/ai-artificial-… * Signable declaration: humanstatement.org

Statement from Max @Tegmark, Founder and Chair of the Future of Life Institute, in the aftermath of @AnthropicAI refusing the Department of War's ultimatum: “Fully autonomous weapons systems and Orwellian AI-enabled domestic mass surveillance are affronts to our dignity and liberty. We highly commend Anthropic, OpenAI and leading researchers from across AI companies for standing up for the principle that AI should never be used to kill people without meaningful human control, and that domestic mass surveillance of US citizens is a red line that should never be crossed. We call on all AI companies to follow suit. However, our safety and basic rights must not be at the mercy of a company's internal policy; lawmakers must work to codify these overwhelmingly popular red lines into law. All AI systems should be under meaningful human control. This is especially true for those that could be used in the taking of human lives. Moreover, current AI systems are inherently unpredictable and fundamentally brittle, unsuited for very high stakes applications. Even if they could be made effective, fully autonomous weapons would pose a threat not just to human dignity and liberty but to American national security: they could inadvertently fuel escalation, and would easily proliferate, putting cheap, accessible, weapons of assassination and mass destruction in the hands of non-state actors and adversaries. They should be prohibited by the US and globally.”

NEW: Sam Altman says OpenAI shares Anthropic's red lines in Pentagon fight axios.com/2026/02/27/alt…

Source: time.com/7380854/exclus…

Anthropic 2024: You can trust that we'll keep all our safety promises Antropic 2026: Nvm