Ege Erdil 02:51:22
…
I think another important thing is just that AIs can be aligned. You get to control the preferences of your AI systems in a way that you don’t really get to control the preference of your workers. Your workers, you can just select, you don’t really have any other option. But for your AIs, you can fine tune them. You can build AI systems which have the kind of preferences that you want. And you can imagine that’s dramatically changing basic problems that determine the structure of human firms.
For example, the principal agent problem might go away. This is a problem where you as a worker have incentives that are either different from those of your manager, or those of the entire firm, or those of the shareholders of the firm.

https://www.dwarkesh.com/p/ege-tamay

It looks like this is a linkpost to:

https://press.asimov.com/articles/obit

Might Leopold Aschenbrenner also be involved? He runs an investment fund with money from Nat Friedman, Daniel Gross, and Patrick Collison, so the investment in Mechanize might have come from that?

https://situationalawarenesslp.com/

https://www.forourposterity.com/

Does this match your understanding?

 

I actually ended up listening to this episode and found it quite high-signal. Lex kept his peace-and-love-kumbaya stuff to a minimum and Dylan and Nathan actually went quite deep on specifics like innovations in Deepseek V3/R1/R1Zero, and hardware and export controls

Matt Levine, in response to:

If you lie to board members about other board members in an attempt to gain control over the board, I assert that the board should fire you, pretty much no matter what

 writes:

No! Wrong! Not no matter what! In a normal company with good governance, absolutely. Lying to the board is the main bad thing that the CEO can do, from a certain perspective. But there are definitely some companies — Elon Musk runs like eight of them, but also OpenAI — where, if you lie to board members about other board members in an attempt to gain control over the board, the board members you lie about should probably say “I’m sure that deep down this is our fault, we’re sorry we made you lie about us, we’ll see ourselves out.”

To be clear, I am very sympathetic to the OpenAI board’s confusion. This was not a simple dumb mistake. They did not think “we are the normal board of a normal public company, and we have to supervise our CEO to make sure that he pursues shareholder value effectively.” This was a much weirder and more reasonable mistake. They thought “we are the board of a nonprofit set up to pursue the difficult and risky mission of achieving artificial general intelligence for the benefit of humanity, and we have to supervise our CEO to make sure he does that.” Lying to the board seems quite bad as a matter of, you know, AI misalignment. 

Am I correct in thinking that you posted this a couple of days ago (with a different title - now deleted), and this version has no substantial changes?

Another good blog:
https://nintil.com/mistakes

The 200k GPU number has been mentioned since October (Elon tweet, Nvidia announcement), so are you saying that that they managed to get the model trained so fast is what beat the predictions you heard?

I met someone in SF doing this but cannot remember the name of the company! If I remember I'll let you know

One idea I thought would be cool related to this is to have several LLMs with different 'personalities' each giving different kinds of feedback. Eg. a 'critic', an 'aesthete', a 'layperson', so just like in Google Docs where you get comments from different people, here you can get inline feedback from different kinds of readers