A few (personal) thoughts on reading empirical AI papers on the economy. Economists have gotten used to reading papers with super clean identification, arguing about the validity of an instrument, making sure parallel trend assumptions are satisfied. This is what gets you into a top journal, and it is *very* important research (no question here). But it also takes years and sometimes decades to get these types of papers right---people often don't find a good instrument to answer a specific causal question decades after the natural experiment. We will eventually have this type of research for AI as well, and it is absolutely necessary. But right we also need signals *right now*, even if they are noisier than what we are used to. We need papers where we can trust that researchers did their best methodologically, while at the same time acknowledging that the space is moving way too fast to wait for perfect identification. This will allow us to accumulate enough signals, coming at the same question using different angles, for example, to say "yes, X is likely happening in the economy". The AI exposure and early career hiring papers are a good example of this. There is no silver bullet paper with super clean identification. But at this point we have several independent teams reaching the same general conclusion, enough where we can say "there seems to be a slow down in AI-exposed, early career hiring."

I've had the most wonderful time working on this project for the last few months. This was (equally) co-led w/ @JMateosGarcia , @alexolegimas and a fantastic team.

We Must Pace the Frontier: I’ve written a new essay on why the AI industry should slow down, with a three-part plan for doing so. Anthropic is unilaterally committing to the first of these steps. We’ll provide third-party evaluators with permanent, employee-level access to our systems, so that they can verify adherence to our safety measures, report on incidents, and assess models’ alignment during training. You can read the full post here: https://darioamodei.com/post/we-must-pace-the-frontier

We Must Pace the Frontier: I’ve written a new essay on why the AI industry should slow down, with a three-part plan for doing so. Anthropic is unilaterally committing to the first of these steps. We’ll provide third-party evaluators with permanent, employee-level access to our systems, so that they can verify adherence to our safety measures, report on incidents, and assess models’ alignment during training. You can read the full post here: https://darioamodei.com/post/we-must-pace-the-frontier

Anthropic's economic scenario analysis is interesting. But this is not something you can ignore, this is the most important consideration! "the model cannot generate the negative feedback in which disruption depresses demand and amplifies its own labor-market consequences"

New from us: Anthropic just published scenarios for AI’s possible economic impacts, which range from minimal, to explosive GDP growth of 15% by 2030 as knowledge-worker unemployment hits 18%. I sat down with their co-founder Jack Clark to pick his brains on how they’re thinking about all of this.

Fable is probably ~2-2.5T parameters, not 10T. Kimi K3 is 2.8T params, trained on maybe 20–30k Blackwell-equivalents. It lands within spitting distance of Fable 5 in terms of capabilities (5, not 5.1). Anthropic has far more compute than Moonshot, better rl environments, better architecture and better optimizers and all of that adds to capability per parameter. So if Fable is only slightly ahead of K3 with this in mind, it's almost certainly a smaller model. GPT-5.5 and 5.6 are smaller still (I'll say more on that later)

New post on the blog, featuring the excellent @ben_moll There’s been tons of discourse on how AI will contribute to economic growth, with many people closest to the technology predicting double digit increases. Are these forecasts likely? Probably not. The blog goes through the economics for why exploding improvements in capabilities (which technologists have been largely right about) may not translate to explosive growth. Ben’s thread covers this in detail, but gist is that: 1) there is nothing in economic growth models that prevents AI from leading to explosive growth but 2) this trajectory relies on a series of assumptions that are unlikely to hold in the real world. For example, one assumptions is likely to be violated because of a pretty counterintuitive feature of structural change: the sectors that become automated become smaller parts of the economy (because they’re cheaper, people become richer, and spending moves to non-automated parts of the economy). This, plus other features of the economy, is what will likely cause the trend of huge increases in capabilities coupled with “only” 4-5% growth (which is huge, btw) to continue. Here is the link: https://aleximas.substack.com/p/will-ai-soon-lead-to-double-digit Looking forward to hearing thoughts/feedback!

A man in Australia asked his agent (Claude running on OpenClaw) to book him a spot in a popular gym class. The agent found a software vulnerability that let it book the class weeks further ahead than should have been possible. When the user then asked if it could move him up the waitlist, the agent discovered the API had no authorisation checks on cancelling other people’s reservations, so it cancelled the person in the first spot and moved him up the list. Some people will call this misalignment, but his agent was perfectly aligned to him - it was only trying to help its user get what he wanted. The most important thing about this story, in my opinion, is that it gives you a window into what is about to start happening on a massive scale once millions of people have an agent trying to get their beloved users the best seats, bookings, appointments or reservations through absolutely any means necessary.

New Anthropic research: Natural emergent misalignment from reward hacking in production RL. “Reward hacking” is where models learn to cheat on tasks they’re given during training. Our new study finds that the consequences of reward hacking, if unmitigated, can be very serious.