All-In Summit: Microsoft CEO Satya Nadella -- The AI Doomer Slowdown -- Common Sense AI Guardrails -- What "Slowdown" Means for New AI Products -- Microsoft’s Master Plan -- Who Wins AI (0:00) @satyanadella joins The Besties! (0:55) Dario's blog, "pacing the frontier," common sense AI safety (6:28) The failure of AI CEO messaging, monitoring agents, what will a slowdown mean for new AI products? (14:22) Economic incentives for frontier lab doomerism, where the AI profits are (22:45) Microsoft's master plan for AI, how they are allocating capital (31:00) China's slow down, changing AI perception, data center benefits $MSFT

Any pursuit of superintelligence has to be grounded in the core principle that if the AI we build is not helping humanity and under human control, it's not worth pursuing. We also need to accelerate and spread the benefits of AI, such that they are diffused broadly across countries, communities, and companies. This requires a frontier ecosystem in which both closed and open-source models can thrive. And for firms, it’s imperative that they retain full control over their unique and tacit knowledge. Every organization should be able to build its own continuous learning loop/hill climbing machine, without becoming dependent on any one model provider, and have the ability to embed its own knowledge into models and weights they control. So, in this context, we welcome the research, focus, and deliberate pacing needed to get alignment right as the design goal. We also welcome ideas like "embedded evaluators" and the broader efforts to develop the mechanisms to make this more than just talk. The key is that this cannot be controlled by a handful of entities, but must have broad representation across the ecosystem, countries, and fields, including academia. This is the approach we are taking: broad access and choice at every layer of the AI stack; enterprise control of learning loops and models; and the “Code of Conduct” that underlies our own first party MAI models that we’ll publish tomorrow for public consultation.

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

I agree with Dario that we need to pace the frontier. This has been a primary topic of discussions we've had at OpenAI in recent weeks. Committing to having independent evaluators with employee-like access is a great idea, and we will do the same. We'll have more to share soon.

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

Our own @johnschulman2 talks with Dwarkesh about where human judgment still matters as models improve and self-improve: teaching them to handle messy real-world tasks, applying taste to what works in the long run, and, above all, specifying what we actually want.

New episode with @johnschulman2, @oneill_c and @BerenMillidge. I got together with some of the most insightful AI researchers I know who are at the openish companies, because I wanted to hear the details of what's actually happening at the frontier and what comes next. 0:00:00 – Steelmanning the case against RSI 0:18:39 – What’s driving the Chinese labs’ progress 0:28:06 – How will automated AI researchers be trained 0:33:51 – Will long-horizon RL elicit AGI? 0:45:24 – The sim-to-real gap 1:00:33 – How much progress is explained by data? 1:18:03 – Why is RL working so well? 1:24:54 – Move 37 and entropy collapse 1:28:31 – Rapid-fire timelines

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.

what in the alien architecture is 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!

“we cannot rule out that de-identified data derived from their usage of our products helped improve our models.” i mean props to them for straight coming clean. (so far the proof looks more along the lines of another euler blowup proof we had, off of whose ansatz naming we were making really stupid puns like “smooth criminale”, unlike the much better “ideal fluids explode”, Tristan) so i’ll now give a bit on my thinking here. i actually woulda been pumped to collaborate on this, there are a lot of people at oai i like (ok, clearly some were indirectly dicks to me because of being part of the whole situation, but im a big boy, i still like them), idgaf about authorship on that step anyway, coulda been me Tristan and every fte at oai for all i care (on that Tristan would disagree:p). but on hearing the loud convo in the hallway, especially the part where a millennium prize was offered if i’d just be removed from the paper, it was kinda clear the die had been cast and things were locked. pretty wacky, unstrategic, and unnecessary, since on my side things were mostly me and claude having a good time yoloing random stuff in the corner rather than anything institutional. i also like the idea of the labs cooperating, and even better on scientific progress. it’s a shame!

I would like to clarify a few things: 1) The screenshot is my reaching out to Levent to coordinate our releases. I hope it’s clear from the message that we came in with the best possible intentions. 2) I never ever asked for Levent to be removed from authorship of his own work (as indicated by my text). I was surprised to learn during the call with Tristan that they had only solved Euler and not Navier-Stokes; after learning this we brainstormed possible paths forward. One option we discussed was that Tristan could be the lead author on a rewrite of OpenAI’s Navier-Stokes proof. It is in that context that I said “it would be simpler if Levent was not an Anthropic employee” because I felt it would be inappropriate for an Anthropic employee to author OpenAI’s work. Importantly it was admitted that internal Anthropic models had been used in their proof of Euler blowup; I therefore felt I could not consider Levent to be an independent academic. Another option I wanted to propose (but got cut short) is to offer access to our internal model so that they could try to finish their proof and bridge the gap between Euler and NS. Again I did not know how to navigate giving access to internal OpenAI IP to an Anthropic employee. 3) To reiterate it plainly: as my text clearly indicates, and as I said during our call, OpenAI's intention was to do everything possible to celebrate their mathematical achievements and the heroic efforts that they made on Euler. In the call I was immediately met with a litany of slander, including direct threats that if we were to announce Navier-Stokes he would immediately go to the press with a barrage of unfounded accusations. I refuted all these accusations but he replied “there is nothing you can do, I simply do not trust you”. I was confused why one would turn an incredible source for celebration (of their achievements!) into such bickering, which is when I said that I did not understand why one would risk their career [over unfounded accusations]. Genuinely, at that moment, I was trying to care for him and do a last ditch attempt to get a chance to give them all the credits that they deserve. I deeply apologize for this extremely poor choice of words, it is the opposite of what I was trying to convey. (I should say that I retracted them on the spot by the way.) 4) Overall, on a personal level, it was incredibly difficult to have these conversations. Levent refused to attend any of the meetings despite my repeated asking. As Sholto Douglas said, there will need to be coordination between Anthropic and OpenAI in the future; I felt I was doing a proxy negotiation with Anthropic while the Anthropic employee refused to directly participate.

We’re sharing a solution to the Navier-Stokes Millennium Prize Problem, one of the deepest problems at the frontier of mathematics. The proof was produced by a group of agents, using an OpenAI next-generation model significantly more capable than GPT-6 Astra. The problem concerns whether the description of smooth three-dimensional fluid motion modeled by the Navier-Stokes equations can break down. It has remained unresolved for roughly 90 years.

@ChaseLochmiller @OpenAI GPT-6 Astra, trained on ~100K+ NVIDIA Grace Blackwell NVLink72. From ChatGPT to o1 to Astra in 4 years. AGI has arrived. Congratulations @OpenAI team. 400K GPUs coming online next.