Altman 双发:框架帖(7781 赞)——「世界值得相信:在进步曲线变陡之际,开发越来越强 AI 的美国公司会负责任行事。每家前沿实验室都必须兑现这一点,做不到我们就都没理由来上班。我们欢迎为前沿 AI 设定一致安全要求的联邦框架——但我们不认为需要等反垄断豁免或立法才能开始」;两条失败路径(7540 赞)——「第一,未来失控地交给 AI:不可接受,我们毫不含糊地站在人类队,AI 必须永远服务于人,为此需要让对齐与安全技术跑赢模型能力;第二,权力过度集中。」Levie 的正名(168 赞):「『配速』有点像触发词——听着像武断降速或借不当监管打压对手;但 Dario 列出的具体改进目标是 AI 开发的绝对必需品。航空航天、生命科学、医疗都有同等等待,AI 不该例外。」
其余:Shipper 的冷面(285 赞):「开始用 Astra medium 干简单任务——这就叫为前沿配速」;Peter Yang 的视角图(44 赞):「我们都在争 AI 会不会给人类带来坏结局,别忘了:世界上大多数人还没开始用它。Brex CEO Pedro 爱引用这张图——每个点 320 万人;灰色格子是从未用过 AI 的人(84%);绿色是免费聊天用户(16%);橙色是每月付 20 美元的付费用户(约 0.3%)」+「我真的很想知道这个账号现在到底是谁在管」(39 赞);Aditya 的一行(12 赞):「想象一个我们不必指望任何单一组织善良正直的世界。」
Altman:两条必避歧路;欢迎联邦框架。Levie:配速目标绝对必需。Yang:84% 的人还没用过 AI。
Altman's double: the framework post (7781 likes): 'The world deserves confidence that American companies developing increasingly capable AI will act responsibly, especially as the trajectory of progress has steepened. Every frontier lab must deliver on this, and there is no reason any of us should come to work if we cannot. We welcome a federal framework that sets consistent safety requirements for frontier AI. But we do not believe we need to wait for an anti-trust exemption or legislation to begin'; and the two failure modes (7540): 'First, we could lose control of the future to AI. This is unacceptable; we are unapologetically on Team Humanity… Second, we could end up in a world with too much concentration of power.' Levie's pacing defense (168): '"Pacing" can be somewhat of a trigger word because it sounds like an arbitrary slow down of capability or a way to hobble competitors through undue regulation. However, the specific improvement goals laid out in Dario's are absolute necessities in AI development. We expect equivalent in areas like aerospace, life sciences, health care.'
The rest: Shipper's deadpan (285): 'started using Astra medium for simple tasks. call that pacing the frontier'; Peter Yang's perspective chart (44): 'While we're all debating whether AI will lead to a bad outcome for humanity, it's important to remember that most of the world hasn't even started using it yet. Pedro, Brex's CEO, likes to refer to a specific chart: Each dot is 3.2 million people. Every gray box is someone that never used AI in the world (84%). Green boxes are free chatbot users (16%). Orange boxes are people who pay $20 a month for AI (~0.3%)' — plus 'I'm really curious who's actually managing this account' (39); and Aditya's one-liner (12): 'Imagine a world where we didn't have to rely on any one organization to be good and virtuous.'
Sam Altman: There are two ways AI progress could go very badly and that we must avoid. First, we could lose control of the future to AI. This is unacceptable; we are unapologetically on Team Humanity, and AI must always serve people. Second, we could end up in a world with too much concentration of power.
Sam Altman: The world deserves confidence that American companies developing increasingly capable AI will act responsibly, especially as the trajectory of progress has steepened. We welcome a federal framework that sets consistent safety requirements for frontier AI.
Aaron Levie: "Pacing" can be somewhat of a trigger word because it sounds like an arbitrary slow down of capability or a way to hobble competitors through undue regulation. However, the specific improvement goals laid out in Dario's are absolute necessities in AI development.
Dan Shipper: started using Astra medium for simple tasks. call that pacing the frontier.
Peter Yang: While we're all debating whether AI will lead to a bad outcome for humanity, it's important to remember that most of the world hasn't even started using it yet. Each dot is 3.2 million people. Every gray box is someone that never used AI in the world (84%).
Aditya Agarwal: Imagine a world where we didn't have to rely on any one organization to be good and virtuous.