4 ms·

AI (2014)

81 points by bjornroberg 7mo ago

nik736 7mo ago
> (I originally was going to say a computer that plays chess, but computers play chess with no intuition or instinct--they just search a gigantic solution space very quickly.) Isn't that how LLM models are trained right now? Trying to predict the next word within a "gigantic solution space". Interesting.
- Lionga 7mo ago
  Which even shows Sam has no idea about AI, as the best chess engine at that point in time Komodo 8 was trained and developed primarily through the efforts of GM Larry Kaufman and Mark Lefler, focusing on refining the engine's evaluation function and search accuracy rather than relying on deep, brute-force calculation. The reference to pong makes even less sense.
- ben_w 7mo ago
  In one sense, all intelligence is a search in a gigantic solution space. But the difference is: What Deep Blue did was (if the Wikipedia page is correct) Alpha-beta pruning[0], where some humans came up with the function for what "better" and "worse" board states look like. And what LLMs do (at least the end models) includes at least some steps where there's an AI trying to learn what human preferences are in the first place, in order to maximise the human evaluation scores. Some of those things are good, like "what's the right answer to the trolley problem?" and "which is the better poem?", but some are bad such as "what answer best flatters the ego of the user without any regard for truth?" The former is exactly like route-finding, in that you could treat travel time as your score of better-worse and the moves as if they're on a map rather than a chess board. The latter is like being dumped into a new video game with no UI and all NPCs interact with you only in a language you don't know such as North Sentinelese. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alpha–beta_pruning https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alpha–beta_pruning
- yobbo 7mo ago
  > Isn't that how LLM models are trained right now It's neither how computer chess works or how LLMs are trained. Computer chess uses various tricks to prune the search space of board states, where the search is guided by the "value" of each board state. Neural networks can be used (and probably was at the time) to approximate this value, but there can be hand coded algorithms with learned statistics or even lookup tables for smaller games than chess. There's no search in LLM training.
jryio 7mo ago
> The most positive outcome I can think of is one where computers get really good at doing, and humans get really good at thinking. If we never figure out how to make computers creative, then there will be a very natural division of labor between man and machine. Man will do nothing and machine will do everything. That's a bleak world no one is preparing for. How is that universal basic income scheme coming along?
- climike 7mo ago
  Resource allocation based on your hackernews upvotes? Thanks in advance folks ;)
- elevatortrim 7mo ago
  That world is not necessarily bleak. We currently have two broad mechanisms to equate people's value. *Employees:* Easy to replace = Low Salary = Gets Few Resources Hard to replace = High Salary = Gets Many Resources *Entrepreneurs:* Output consumed low = Low Pay = Gets Few Resources Output consumed high = High Pay = Gets Many Resources (Resource consumption ignored) In a world where machines do everything, aspects of these change: *Employees:* Easy to replace = Gets whatever resources (no-one hard to replace) It is up to us to define whether 'whatever' is bleak or not. If we decide that resources need to be shared fairly, it could be heaven, not hell. *Entrepreneurs:* Resource consumption: Whatever It is up to us how much resource consumption we allow. If we decide that resource consumption need to be sustainable, it could be heaven, not hell.
  - Loughla 7mo ago
    Lol this does not fill me with hope. If there is person A who can become a squillionnaire by making sure that the employees of a company make as little as possible due to AI, that's what's going to happen. There is zero way "we" will decide resources need to be shared fairly. If person A can amass more money and power, then resource consumption literally doesn't matter. There is no way "we" will be involved in that process at all. Call me cynical, but it appears that human history has proven over and over and over again that whatever the short sighted, selfish option that enriches a very few is, is what will happen, until there is finally violence. I do not look forward to the AI wars that my children will be forced to fight in.
Jensson 7mo ago
> And maybe we don't want to build machines that are concious in this sense. The most positive outcome I can think of is one where computers get really good at doing, and humans get really good at thinking. If we never figure out how to make computers creative, then there will be a very natural division of labor between man and machine. This is where LLM is currently going. Not really AGI since they can't think like humans, but they can do a lot of things and humans can train them on novel things. Then human work is changed to figuring out new things and the AI solves all old things, that seems much more fun than most white collar work today.
- lebek 7mo ago
  > Then human work is changed to figuring out new things and the AI solves all old things, that seems much more fun than most white collar work today. But it's not fun to be figuring out new things all the time. Some amount of routine work is necessary to 1) exercise mastery (feels good), and 2) recover energy. This is why a lot of people find agentic coding exhausting and less fun, you're basically always having to be creative (what's the next feature?) or solve the hardest 5% of issues the LLM can't handle.
  - embedding-shape 7mo ago
    > you're basically always having to be creative (what's the next feature?) or solve the hardest 5% of issues the LLM can't handle. Maybe I'm wired differently, but this is fun to me, and "exercising mastery" by doing routine work is almost never fun, things stop being fun and feel good once I've "mastered" them, and I can't say I've ever "recovered energy" by doing routine work, it seems to suck energy out of me faster than anything. To recover, I tend to rest and do anything but work. But again, maybe it's just weird wiring.
    - __s 7mo ago
      For me a bit of grunt work to start the day is like morning strechs
      - 7mo ago
drcongo 7mo ago
Wait, so his keyboard has got a shift key?!
- Jensson 7mo ago
  This was written before you have to add in errors in your text so people can tell you aren't an LLM.
- alexyoung 7mo ago
  Well he is called Sam _Alt_man, not Sam Shiftman
  - bjornroberg 7mo ago
    Actually laughed out loud on this one. I don't know what that says about me.
- throwaway132448 7mo ago
  Whatever happened to that key is a key part of his origin story, that I’m sure will be revealed in due course.
trilogic 7mo ago
Nailed it 12 Years ago... damn it, then after all Sam is not just talk and money. I just got humbled. This make me reconsider all my POV about Sam Altman.
- 9dev 7mo ago
  Yeah, maybe don't. He's a smart guy for sure, but that really doesn't redeem him from the awful qualities he undoubtedly has—insatiable greed, a compulsion to lie and manipulate, a special flavour of god complex, no moral compass at all, and more.
  - embedding-shape 7mo ago
    > insatiable greed, a compulsion to lie and manipulate, a special flavour of god complex, no moral compass at all, and more Besides these traits that every CEO/big-time investor seems to share, is there anything uniquely awful with Altman?
    - 9dev 7mo ago
      Besides the fact that he's an especially awful specimen (the lying and manipulation alone made it to the news several times), I just don't think that a rather clear-sighted blog post from 12 years ago is a valid reason to change your views about Altman.
    - aleph_minus_one 7mo ago
      > is there anything uniquely awful with Altman? His involvement in Worldcoin (now named "World"), i.e. biometric scanning of huge populations.
  - trilogic 7mo ago
    I am the last person on earth who would ever write a positive thing about Altman, but can´t lie neither, a fact is a fact, there available to everyone. Fair is fair.
- imiric 7mo ago
mpalmer 7mo ago
The most positive outcome I can think of is one where computers get really good at doing, and humans get really good at thinking Steve Yegge said on some podcast recently that AI is going to have to come up with a more visual medium for communicating, because people don't want to read several paragraphs. He shared this uncritically, seemingly without judgement or disappointment. Yegge himself is a former Googler and by all accounts was an impressive person at one point, now best known as the person who vibe-birthed the inanity that is GasTown. At work I'm seeing colleagues I once considered formidable completely turning off their brains and letting the bot drive, and wholly missing the mark on work quality. It's like a sickness, like COVID brain fog people don't even notice they have. I see humans getting worse at reading, worse at writing, and worse at programming by themselves. It makes me angry and sad. We are getting dumber, people, and I fully believe Altman and friends are lying when they say they want it otherwise.
- ugtr3 7mo ago
  Correct. LLM’s are the virus of the mind - people think so what? I get my output and move on. Yeah.. no. You need that thinking capacity to protect yourself. Once that’s gone en-masse, what’s left of the democratic system (not much) will completely collapse. Congrats to legally creating an environment that yields oligarchy. Altman and his cronies yearn for a swath of people who cannnot think for themselves.
DeathArrow 7mo ago
In a sane world AI revolution would be driven by the likes of Andrew Ng, Andrej Karpathy, Yann LeCun and not by a brigade of Sam Altmans.
- kolinko 7mo ago
  As someone who spent most of my time with computer scientists - the last thing I’d like would be for them to run the world.
  - ugtr3 7mo ago
    Yup. Unhinged to put it mildly. People who are liberal artsy at the core but do computer science? Yes.
- jstummbillig 7mo ago
  Is the novel idea behind this recurring critique that a CEO must be the chief scientist or that we uniquely hate Sam Altman over all other CEOs?
Alan_Writer 7mo ago
"If we never figure out how to make computers creative, then there will be a very natural division of labor between man and machine." Even if AI can't reach (yet) the creativity level, it performs well while trying, at least for now. Who knows in the near future? So far, the roadmap is clear. The AI push is causing major layoffs in the tech and crypto industries nowadays. But we have been receiving the message "adapt or pay the consequences." Right now, even management positions are being replaced by software. It could sound rude, but it's also part of human nature and evolution. We have created these machines, and now we have to deal with them. On the other hand, it could be rare at these stages, but we (regular human beings) barely know how the brain really works. And AI has demonstrated, at some point, that it can work very well in some roles (mostly operational, ofc), but it's also turning indispensable. Even governments like the Abu Dhabi one are pushing to rule the emirate fully by AI. So yeah, even if we don't like it, AI is silently replacing humans. The best you can do is to learn how to leverage and not be left behind.
- bluefirebrand 7mo ago
  > We have created these machines, and now we have to deal with them. "We" didn't create these machines. Some assholes did I'm personally in favor of killing the assholes and destroying the machines, forgetting they ever existed. Not a popular opinion I guess, so instead we'll just continue on until they replace and kill us. Hooray!
archagon 7mo ago
Altman is a ruthless capitalist, not a thought leader in any way. Why are we sharing his writing while pretending that he is?
- bluefirebrand 7mo ago
  Ruthless capitalists are worshipped in the tech industry
Frannky 7mo ago
I model LLMs as searchers. Give the input search and they match an output. The massiveness of the parameters and training data let them map data in a way searching looks like human thinking. They can also permutate a little and still stay in a space that can overlap with reality. The human brain may be doing a very similar thing though, search and permutation via searched rules. It may be doing it just in a functional way, with more ability to search on massive data that may be with holes but filled with synthetic data via mind subprocesses on learned rules. I think machines can eventually get there, especially if we can figure out how to harness continuous models instead of discrete ones. And I have a feeling that functional analysis may be the key.
- fy20 7mo ago
  It's an interesting way to think about it. For every word you say, every message you write, every task you do, every thought you have, every subtle cue you give, there is a statistically best response / follow up / output. And all of that can distilled and stored into such a small amount of data. If that's really how consciousness works in our mind (just another representation of "output") it's fascinating. The repercussions though could be concerning. On one hand it means things like consciousness upload will be possible. On the other hand it means security agencies can monitor people and figure out who is (literally) committing thought crime. They'd just need to search the space and figure out what weights a person's internal model runs on - and you wouldn't actually need that much reference material to do it. Basically Minority Report.
  - Frannky 6mo ago
    I think you are mixing two concepts. I was just talking about having an LLM that is able to replicate human thinking, which is different then having a precise person's brains turned into LLM weights. In that second case the problems you are saying emerge. But I can understand why you conflate the two, since having a model that works like a human may unlock the ability to dump the brain into model weights.
maxutility 7mo ago
I found Sam's early 2015 posts on machine superintelligence and regulation [1] [2] to be even more interesting in hindsight, given OpenAI's accelerationist bent of late, OpenAI president Greg Brockman's lobbying efforts against AI regulation, and frequent accusations of attempted regulatory capture. [1] https://blog.samaltman.com/machine-intelligence-part-1 https://blog.samaltman.com/machine-intelligence-part-1 [2] https://blog.samaltman.com/machine-intelligence-part-2 https://blog.samaltman.com/machine-intelligence-part-2 Sam's recommendations at the time include: 1) Provide a framework to observe progress… 2) Given how disastrous a bug could be, require development safeguards to reduce the risk of the accident case. For example, beyond a certain checkpoint, we could require development happen only on airgapped computers…, require that certain parts of the software be subject to third-party code reviews, etc. 3) Require that the first SMI developed have as part of its operating rules that a) it can’t cause any direct or indirect harm to humanity (i.e. Asimov’s zeroeth law), b) it should detect other SMI being developed but take no action beyond detection, c) other than required for part b, have no effect on the world. … 4) Provide lots of funding for R+D for groups that comply with all of this, especially for groups doing safety research. 5) Provide a longer-term framework for how we figure out a safe and happy future for coexisting with SMI… Also, in his acknowledgments he gives the greatest thanks to onetime partner, now rival, Dario Amodei.

AI (2014)

81 points by bjornroberg 7mo ago

> (I originally was going to say a computer that plays chess, but computers play chess with no intuition or instinct--they just search a gigantic solution space very quickly.) Isn't that how LLM models are trained right now? Trying to predict the next word within a "gigantic solution space". Interesting.

Lionga 7mo ago
Which even shows Sam has no idea about AI, as the best chess engine at that point in time Komodo 8 was trained and developed primarily through the efforts of GM Larry Kaufman and Mark Lefler, focusing on refining the engine's evaluation function and search accuracy rather than relying on deep, brute-force calculation. The reference to pong makes even less sense.
ben_w 7mo ago
In one sense, all intelligence is a search in a gigantic solution space. But the difference is: What Deep Blue did was (if the Wikipedia page is correct) Alpha-beta pruning[0], where some humans came up with the function for what "better" and "worse" board states look like. And what LLMs do (at least the end models) includes at least some steps where there's an AI trying to learn what human preferences are in the first place, in order to maximise the human evaluation scores. Some of those things are good, like "what's the right answer to the trolley problem?" and "which is the better poem?", but some are bad such as "what answer best flatters the ego of the user without any regard for truth?" The former is exactly like route-finding, in that you could treat travel time as your score of better-worse and the moves as if they're on a map rather than a chess board. The latter is like being dumped into a new video game with no UI and all NPCs interact with you only in a language you don't know such as North Sentinelese. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alpha–beta_pruning https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alpha–beta_pruning
yobbo 7mo ago
> Isn't that how LLM models are trained right now It's neither how computer chess works or how LLMs are trained. Computer chess uses various tricks to prune the search space of board states, where the search is guided by the "value" of each board state. Neural networks can be used (and probably was at the time) to approximate this value, but there can be hand coded algorithms with learned statistics or even lookup tables for smaller games than chess. There's no search in LLM training.

jryio 7mo ago

> The most positive outcome I can think of is one where computers get really good at doing, and humans get really good at thinking. If we never figure out how to make computers creative, then there will be a very natural division of labor between man and machine. Man will do nothing and machine will do everything. That's a bleak world no one is preparing for. How is that universal basic income scheme coming along?

climike 7mo ago
Resource allocation based on your hackernews upvotes? Thanks in advance folks ;)
elevatortrim 7mo ago
That world is not necessarily bleak. We currently have two broad mechanisms to equate people's value. *Employees:* Easy to replace = Low Salary = Gets Few Resources Hard to replace = High Salary = Gets Many Resources *Entrepreneurs:* Output consumed low = Low Pay = Gets Few Resources Output consumed high = High Pay = Gets Many Resources (Resource consumption ignored) In a world where machines do everything, aspects of these change: *Employees:* Easy to replace = Gets whatever resources (no-one hard to replace) It is up to us to define whether 'whatever' is bleak or not. If we decide that resources need to be shared fairly, it could be heaven, not hell. *Entrepreneurs:* Resource consumption: Whatever It is up to us how much resource consumption we allow. If we decide that resource consumption need to be sustainable, it could be heaven, not hell.
- Loughla 7mo ago
  Lol this does not fill me with hope. If there is person A who can become a squillionnaire by making sure that the employees of a company make as little as possible due to AI, that's what's going to happen. There is zero way "we" will decide resources need to be shared fairly. If person A can amass more money and power, then resource consumption literally doesn't matter. There is no way "we" will be involved in that process at all. Call me cynical, but it appears that human history has proven over and over and over again that whatever the short sighted, selfish option that enriches a very few is, is what will happen, until there is finally violence. I do not look forward to the AI wars that my children will be forced to fight in.

Jensson 7mo ago

> And maybe we don't want to build machines that are concious in this sense. The most positive outcome I can think of is one where computers get really good at doing, and humans get really good at thinking. If we never figure out how to make computers creative, then there will be a very natural division of labor between man and machine. This is where LLM is currently going. Not really AGI since they can't think like humans, but they can do a lot of things and humans can train them on novel things. Then human work is changed to figuring out new things and the AI solves all old things, that seems much more fun than most white collar work today.

lebek 7mo ago
> Then human work is changed to figuring out new things and the AI solves all old things, that seems much more fun than most white collar work today. But it's not fun to be figuring out new things all the time. Some amount of routine work is necessary to 1) exercise mastery (feels good), and 2) recover energy. This is why a lot of people find agentic coding exhausting and less fun, you're basically always having to be creative (what's the next feature?) or solve the hardest 5% of issues the LLM can't handle.
- embedding-shape 7mo ago
  > you're basically always having to be creative (what's the next feature?) or solve the hardest 5% of issues the LLM can't handle. Maybe I'm wired differently, but this is fun to me, and "exercising mastery" by doing routine work is almost never fun, things stop being fun and feel good once I've "mastered" them, and I can't say I've ever "recovered energy" by doing routine work, it seems to suck energy out of me faster than anything. To recover, I tend to rest and do anything but work. But again, maybe it's just weird wiring.
  - __s 7mo ago
    For me a bit of grunt work to start the day is like morning strechs
    - 7mo ago

drcongo 7mo ago

Wait, so his keyboard has got a shift key?!

Jensson 7mo ago
This was written before you have to add in errors in your text so people can tell you aren't an LLM.
alexyoung 7mo ago
Well he is called Sam _Alt_man, not Sam Shiftman
- bjornroberg 7mo ago
  Actually laughed out loud on this one. I don't know what that says about me.
throwaway132448 7mo ago
Whatever happened to that key is a key part of his origin story, that I’m sure will be revealed in due course.

trilogic 7mo ago

Nailed it 12 Years ago... damn it, then after all Sam is not just talk and money. I just got humbled. This make me reconsider all my POV about Sam Altman.

9dev 7mo ago
Yeah, maybe don't. He's a smart guy for sure, but that really doesn't redeem him from the awful qualities he undoubtedly has—insatiable greed, a compulsion to lie and manipulate, a special flavour of god complex, no moral compass at all, and more.
- embedding-shape 7mo ago
  > insatiable greed, a compulsion to lie and manipulate, a special flavour of god complex, no moral compass at all, and more Besides these traits that every CEO/big-time investor seems to share, is there anything uniquely awful with Altman?
  - 9dev 7mo ago
    Besides the fact that he's an especially awful specimen (the lying and manipulation alone made it to the news several times), I just don't think that a rather clear-sighted blog post from 12 years ago is a valid reason to change your views about Altman.
  - aleph_minus_one 7mo ago
    > is there anything uniquely awful with Altman? His involvement in Worldcoin (now named "World"), i.e. biometric scanning of huge populations.
- trilogic 7mo ago
  I am the last person on earth who would ever write a positive thing about Altman, but can´t lie neither, a fact is a fact, there available to everyone. Fair is fair.
imiric 7mo ago

mpalmer 7mo ago

The most positive outcome I can think of is one where computers get really good at doing, and humans get really good at thinking Steve Yegge said on some podcast recently that AI is going to have to come up with a more visual medium for communicating, because people don't want to read several paragraphs. He shared this uncritically, seemingly without judgement or disappointment. Yegge himself is a former Googler and by all accounts was an impressive person at one point, now best known as the person who vibe-birthed the inanity that is GasTown. At work I'm seeing colleagues I once considered formidable completely turning off their brains and letting the bot drive, and wholly missing the mark on work quality. It's like a sickness, like COVID brain fog people don't even notice they have. I see humans getting worse at reading, worse at writing, and worse at programming by themselves. It makes me angry and sad. We are getting dumber, people, and I fully believe Altman and friends are lying when they say they want it otherwise.

ugtr3 7mo ago
Correct. LLM’s are the virus of the mind - people think so what? I get my output and move on. Yeah.. no. You need that thinking capacity to protect yourself. Once that’s gone en-masse, what’s left of the democratic system (not much) will completely collapse. Congrats to legally creating an environment that yields oligarchy. Altman and his cronies yearn for a swath of people who cannnot think for themselves.

DeathArrow 7mo ago

In a sane world AI revolution would be driven by the likes of Andrew Ng, Andrej Karpathy, Yann LeCun and not by a brigade of Sam Altmans.

kolinko 7mo ago
As someone who spent most of my time with computer scientists - the last thing I’d like would be for them to run the world.
- ugtr3 7mo ago
  Yup. Unhinged to put it mildly. People who are liberal artsy at the core but do computer science? Yes.
jstummbillig 7mo ago
Is the novel idea behind this recurring critique that a CEO must be the chief scientist or that we uniquely hate Sam Altman over all other CEOs?

Alan_Writer 7mo ago

"If we never figure out how to make computers creative, then there will be a very natural division of labor between man and machine." Even if AI can't reach (yet) the creativity level, it performs well while trying, at least for now. Who knows in the near future? So far, the roadmap is clear. The AI push is causing major layoffs in the tech and crypto industries nowadays. But we have been receiving the message "adapt or pay the consequences." Right now, even management positions are being replaced by software. It could sound rude, but it's also part of human nature and evolution. We have created these machines, and now we have to deal with them. On the other hand, it could be rare at these stages, but we (regular human beings) barely know how the brain really works. And AI has demonstrated, at some point, that it can work very well in some roles (mostly operational, ofc), but it's also turning indispensable. Even governments like the Abu Dhabi one are pushing to rule the emirate fully by AI. So yeah, even if we don't like it, AI is silently replacing humans. The best you can do is to learn how to leverage and not be left behind.

bluefirebrand 7mo ago
> We have created these machines, and now we have to deal with them. "We" didn't create these machines. Some assholes did I'm personally in favor of killing the assholes and destroying the machines, forgetting they ever existed. Not a popular opinion I guess, so instead we'll just continue on until they replace and kill us. Hooray!

archagon 7mo ago

Altman is a ruthless capitalist, not a thought leader in any way. Why are we sharing his writing while pretending that he is?

bluefirebrand 7mo ago
Ruthless capitalists are worshipped in the tech industry

Frannky 7mo ago

I model LLMs as searchers. Give the input search and they match an output. The massiveness of the parameters and training data let them map data in a way searching looks like human thinking. They can also permutate a little and still stay in a space that can overlap with reality. The human brain may be doing a very similar thing though, search and permutation via searched rules. It may be doing it just in a functional way, with more ability to search on massive data that may be with holes but filled with synthetic data via mind subprocesses on learned rules. I think machines can eventually get there, especially if we can figure out how to harness continuous models instead of discrete ones. And I have a feeling that functional analysis may be the key.

fy20 7mo ago
It's an interesting way to think about it. For every word you say, every message you write, every task you do, every thought you have, every subtle cue you give, there is a statistically best response / follow up / output. And all of that can distilled and stored into such a small amount of data. If that's really how consciousness works in our mind (just another representation of "output") it's fascinating. The repercussions though could be concerning. On one hand it means things like consciousness upload will be possible. On the other hand it means security agencies can monitor people and figure out who is (literally) committing thought crime. They'd just need to search the space and figure out what weights a person's internal model runs on - and you wouldn't actually need that much reference material to do it. Basically Minority Report.
- Frannky 6mo ago
  I think you are mixing two concepts. I was just talking about having an LLM that is able to replicate human thinking, which is different then having a precise person's brains turned into LLM weights. In that second case the problems you are saying emerge. But I can understand why you conflate the two, since having a model that works like a human may unlock the ability to dump the brain into model weights.

maxutility 7mo ago

I found Sam's early 2015 posts on machine superintelligence and regulation [1] [2] to be even more interesting in hindsight, given OpenAI's accelerationist bent of late, OpenAI president Greg Brockman's lobbying efforts against AI regulation, and frequent accusations of attempted regulatory capture. [1] https://blog.samaltman.com/machine-intelligence-part-1 https://blog.samaltman.com/machine-intelligence-part-1 [2] https://blog.samaltman.com/machine-intelligence-part-2 https://blog.samaltman.com/machine-intelligence-part-2 Sam's recommendations at the time include: 1) Provide a framework to observe progress… 2) Given how disastrous a bug could be, require development safeguards to reduce the risk of the accident case. For example, beyond a certain checkpoint, we could require development happen only on airgapped computers…, require that certain parts of the software be subject to third-party code reviews, etc. 3) Require that the first SMI developed have as part of its operating rules that a) it can’t cause any direct or indirect harm to humanity (i.e. Asimov’s zeroeth law), b) it should detect other SMI being developed but take no action beyond detection, c) other than required for part b, have no effect on the world. … 4) Provide lots of funding for R+D for groups that comply with all of this, especially for groups doing safety research. 5) Provide a longer-term framework for how we figure out a safe and happy future for coexisting with SMI… Also, in his acknowledgments he gives the greatest thanks to onetime partner, now rival, Dario Amodei.