Bill Gurley

October 17th, 2026 in college football. https://t.co/BTcnn4mt6a

This is a great story (below). The Runnin Down a Dream Foundation is actively searching for more partnerships. Please reach out through partnerships@rdad.org.

Legend.

More great stuff - the "rationalists" view of AI. From an expert.

These are the people that should lead any AI regulatory framework discussions. Software safety experts.

This is what real software security thinking looks like. Not moral platitudes or meeting with religious leaders.

It’s becoming clear that the notion of AI alignment “is” the safety problem in AI.

Strikes me this implies the company is certainly using customer’s prompts as part of the training data? Otherwise, why would it matter? There would be no impact to the larger system. Open to hearing why this is wrong.

Will it “tattle” on you?

Probably the most impressive single philanthropic effort I have ever seen. Why move $ through lossy non-profits when you can do direct wealth transfer. Hyper efficient. Much respect to @MichaelDell and Susan! https://t.co/pG957JUVZ5

@gdemaneuf @R_H_Ebright @NIHDirector_Jay @sigridbratlie Agree.

I applaud @NIHDirector_Jay decision to bring in Kristian Andersen to talk at NIH. First, Jay himself was a victim of being silenced & denigrated by the people currently in his role. Rather than repeat that atrocity, he is being professional. Second, we should always applaud more discussion, more debate, & more conversation. That is how we will find our way to root-cause. Once again, many worked to shut down discussion in early 2020 (which Jay mentions in his post). The same failure should not be repeated. Also, I would recommend anyone interested in the current views on the Covid origins discussion immediately watch @mattwridley conversatio…

Mustafa is the statesman AI needs. We all need to take the “hyperbole” way down. The doomerism is just the mirror image of the positive hyperbole. They go hand in hand. “We are going to cure cancer in three years!” No you won’t. Wish you were. But no.

This @mustafasuleyman interview is a “must watch” if you are concerned about AI safety.

This is directly stated in “Machines of Loving Grace” which the company makes employment candidates read and even hands out to customers. https://t.co/JUBHCHrurP

Grateful that @elizabethjdias of @nytimes wrote this piece on how Anthropic thinks about their model, software consciousness, & the model's role vis-a-vis religion. If you are doing business with this company (customer/partner), evaluating it (press), or regulating it (government), it is important to know how "they" think about their models and what they are doing. It's very different from any software company that ever existed. Judge for yourself what you think about this approach, but be aware and informed. https://t.co/L1oP6lGxEF

In the AI-doomer argument, broad multidisciplinary thinkers like @sapinker have suggested the "kill-us-all" scenarios are preposterous. The AI researchers, that are most negatively outspoken, say that their voice should count more, because they are closest to AI and know what it can do. Everyone watching this debate should read about Tetlock's work (see below). The generalists (foxes) and much better predictors than the specialists (hedgehogs) who are to close to the problem to accurately predict broader implications. So "no points" for the "we know more" argument. In fact, it works against you.

This is how mature enterprises solve security problems (vs braggadocios press releases that create panic instead).

https://t.co/1zjF2UA20C

"Don't think for a second that because you are an 'alarmist' that you are doing a social good." Amen.

Consequences will both harden the product and reduce the press releases where companies brag about their product flaws.

Lucky to have @chrisbosh in Austin sharing wisdom. 🤘

This is a topic that has been weighing heavily on my mind for over five years. I hope we can find a way for eveyone to move forward with “inquiry” as the true-north. For the best interest of the globe.

A man of reason.

Another great point from @jason. The large closed model corporations have publically admitted their products are defective & can be used to hack/cause cyber crimes. They should 1) fix these issues, & 2) disclose these large (seemingly likely) liabilities in their S-1.

This is spot on. We need to stop listening to fantasies - these people have watched too many marvel movies. And fix your products. They are hacking people.

I'm not of fan of regulation for two reasons - 1) its hard to get right, and 2) its highly susceptible to regulatory capture. That said, if we insist on doing it, we should try to get it correct. As "safety" seems is the primary goal of this AI regulation exercise, I wanted to share that I recently went deep on both the 737 Max (2 crashes) and Fukushima accidents. In both cases, the investigations led to a conclusion that "regulatory capture" was the EXACT failure that led to both safety incidents. Boeing/FAA and Tepco/NISA. As a result, with safety as the #1 goal, the regulator MUST BE someone with authority and accountability "over" the r…

It was exactly three years ago that I gave this talk on “regulatory capture” at the @theallinpod Summit. I did predict that the large incumbent AI companies would “beg for” regulation. No idea they would beg this hard. https://t.co/6vjhYZQNT7

Well said. Agree.

https://t.co/UDgBJbZCYP