O1 probably scales to superhuman reasoning:

O1 given maximal compute solves most AIME questions. (One of the hardest benchmarks in existence). If this isn’t gamed by having the solution somewhere in the corpus then:

-you can make the base model more efficient at thinking

-you can implement the base model more efficiently on hardware

-you can simply wait for hardware to get better

-you can create custom inference chips

Anything wrong with this view? I think agents are unlocked shortly along with or after this too.

https://x.com/arcprize/status/1849225898391933148?s=46&t=lZJAHzXMXI1MgQuyBgEhgA

My read of the events. Anthropic is trying to raise money and rushed out a half baked model.

3.5 opus has not yet had the desired results. 3.5 sonnet, being easier to iterate on, was tuned to beat OpenAI’s model on some arbitrary benchmarks in an effort to wow investors.

With the failed run of Opus, they presumably tried to get o1 like reasoning results or some agentic breakthrough. The previous 3.5s was also particularly good because of a fluke of the training run rng (same as gpt4-0314), which makes it harder for iterations to beat it.

They are probably now rushing to scale inference time compute. I wonder if they tried doing something with steering vectors initially for 3.5 opus.

A while ago I predicted that I think there's a more likely than not chance Anthropic would run out of money trying to compete with OpenAI, Meta, and Deepmind (60%).  At the time and now, it seems they still have no image video or voice generation unlike the others, and do not process image as well in inputs either. 
 

 OpenAI's costs are reportedly at 8.5 billion. Despite being flush in cash from a recent funding round, they were allegedly at the brink of bankruptcy and required a new, even larger, funding round.  Anthropic does not have the same deep pockets as the other players. Big tech like apple who are not deeply invested in AI seem to be wary of investing in OpenAI. It stands to reason, Amazon may be as well. It is looking more likely that Anthropic will be left in the dust (80%), 
 

The only winning path I see is a new more compute efficient architecture emerges, they are first, and they manage to kick of RSI before more funded competitors rush in to copy them. Since this seems unlikely I think they are not going to fare well. 

Really? He seems pretty bullish. He thinks it will co author math papers pretty soon. I think he just doesn’t think or at least state his thoughts on implications outside of math.

Except billionaires give out plenty of money for philanthropy. If the AI has a slight preference to keeping humans alive, things probably work out well. Billionaires have a slight preference to things they care about instead of random charities. I don’t see how preferences don’t apply here.

This is a vibes based argument using math incorrectly. A randomly chosen preference from a distribution of preferences is unlikely to involve humans, but that’s not necessarily what we’re looking at here is it.

The chip export controls are largely irrelevant.  Westerners badly underestimate the Chinese and they have caught up to 7nm at scale.  They also caught up to 5nm, but not at scale. The original chip ban was meant to stop China from going sub 14nm. Instead now we may have just bifurcated advanced chip capabilities. 

The general argument before was "In 10 years, when the Chinese catch up to TSMC, TSMC will be 10 years ahead." Now the only missing link in the piece for China is EUV. And now the common argument is that same line with ASML subbed in for TSMC. Somehow, I doubt this will be a long term blocker. 

Best case for the Chinese chip industry, they just clone EUV.  Worst case, they find an alternative. Monopolies and first movers don't often have the most efficient solution. 

Talk through the grapevine:

Safety is implemented in a highly idiotic way in non frontier but well-funded labs (and possibly in frontier ones too?). 

Think raising a firestorm over a 10th leading mini LLM being potentially jailbroken. 

The effect is employees get mildly disillusioned with saftey-ism, and it gets seen as unserious. There should have been a hard distinction between existential risks and standard corporate censorship. "Notkilleveryoneism" is simply too ridiculous sounding to spread. But maybe memetic selection pressures make it impossible for the irrelevant version of safety to not dominate.
 

Talk is cheap. It's hard to say how they will react as both risks and upsides remain speculative. From the actual plenum, it's hard to tell if Xi is talking about existential risks.

Red-teaming is being done in a way that doesn't reduce existential risk at all but instead makes models less useful for users. 

https://x.com/shaunralston/status/1821828407195525431