Yeah, these are mysteries, I don't know why. TSMC I think did get hit pretty hard though. 

Politicians announce all sorts of things on the campaign trail, that usually is not much indication of what post-election policy will be.

Seems more likely the drop was from Trump tariff leaks than deepseek’s app.

I also note that 30x seems like an under-estimate to me, but also too simplified. AIs will make some tasks vastly easier, but won't help too much with other tasks. We will have a new set of bottlenecks once we reach the "AIs vastly helping with your work" phase. The question to ask is "what will the new bottlenecks be, and who do we have to hire to be prepared for them?" 

If you are uncertain, this consideration should lean you much more towards adaptive generalists than the standard academic crop.

There's the standard software engineer response of "You cannot make a baby in 1 month with 9 pregnant women". If you don't have a term in this calculation for the amount of research hours that must be done serially vs the amount of research hours that can be done in parallel, then it will always seem like we have too few people, and should invest vastly more in growth growth growth!

If you find that actually your constraint is serial research output, then you still may conclude you need a lot of people, but you will sacrifice a reasonable amount of growth speed for attracting better serial researchers. 

(Possibly this shakes out to mathematicians and physicists, but I don't want to bring that conversation into here)

The most obvious one imo is the immune system & the signals it sends. 

Others:

• Circadian rhythm
• Age is perhaps a candidate here, though it may be more or less a candidate depending on if you're talking about someone before or after 30
• Hospice workers sometimes talk about the body "knowing how to die", maybe there's something to that

If that’s the situation, then why the “if and only if”, if we magically make then all believe they will die if they make ASI, then they would all individually be incentivized to stop it from happening independent of China’s actions.

I think that China and the US would definitely agree to pause if and only if they can confirm the other also committing to a pause. Unfortunately, this is a really hard thing to confirm, much harder than with nuclear.

This seems false to me. Eg Trump for one seems likely to do what the person who pays him the most & is the most loyal to him tells him to do, and AI risk worriers do not have the money or the politics for either of those criteria compared to, for example, Elon Musk.

Its on his Linkedin at least. Apparently since the start of the year.

I will note this sounds a lot like Turntrout's old Attainable Utility Preservation scheme. Not exactly, but enough that I wouldn't be surprised if a bunch of the math here has already been worked out by him (and possibly, in the comments, a bunch of the failure-modes identified).