1) Where possible, don't test in animals.

2) When testing in animals, first ensure that there is reasonable confidence the risk and severity of harm from the testing will be minimal. Only begin initial in vivo testing after this has first been achieved.

3) For test animals that are or aren't harmed, allow them to live happy, (relatively) normal, natural lives. Don't end their life early unnecessarily, with exceptions for humane euthanasia if the testing has unexpectedly caused significant, persistent suffering. Treat them as a pet owner would treat their beloved pet rat.

Some may consider it extreme, but, in my view, in an ideal world, people would treat testing in animals almost like testing in humans. The researcher should first ask "would I feel comfortable testing this in a voluntary human test subject?" Non-human animals would still be the first line of testing, since harm/death in a rat/mouse/chimpanzee is less morally bad than in a human, but I think this should be the mindset.

I thought a looped transformer is in fact reasoning more in latent space, though "reasoning" in a somewhat different way from the standard reasoning token approach.

You're saying you think there might be machine demigods in 50 years, but that one shouldn't use the pace of AI advances today to update positively on the probability of that?

Unless Gemini CLI greatly improves and Argon works well in it, this probably won't make a dent in the coding market.

I did negatively update based on reports of colleagues saying he has a tendency to be deceptive, though.

But, yes, there should probably be laws that make it so if you summon a demon that causes a mass casualty event you face criminal penalties.

I am not saying I trust them not to make a mistake that leads to catastrophe. OpenAI in particular is not doing a great job. Anthropic or OpenAI may in fact indirectly kill millions or billions of people. I still think they're probably less clownish than most possible alternatives.

I don't think anyone or anything can really be trusted with this. We need extremely strict international and national regulations, before things really start accelerating (we are still in the very very early stage). I still just don't really feel any specific disdain for OpenAI or Anthropic (particularly Anthropic).

Ideally we'd have some international treaties that allow the top labs in America and China share information and coordinate as systems become increasingly capable.

(It'll probably be masses of demigods, not one Singleton God, but obviously it's going to be some absurd frightening situation akin to this within our lifetime assuming no global AI ban.)

Decent odds things will go bad under their stewardship, but even higher odds with lots of other entities. Dario and Sam at least fully grasp the enormity of what they're about to be responsible for. Zuck does not. Xi Jinping and Donald Trump may or may not but in any case would use that to effect great harm.

Controversially: I agree with them. They're correct to think that. They are, and they are.

At the very least, the former is true even if the latter is murky. I trust them over Facebook and Google and China and open source "raze the commons" labs.

I trust Anthropic more than OpenAI when it comes to ASI catastrophe prevention, but I still trust OAI more than those other parties. But both still might fuck it up.

We are extremely early in the history of AI and even the history of LLMs. I'd easily make a bet with anyone on that.

Seems to likely just be a standard socially constructed folk belief