A frontier AI company should shut down

Prior discussion: niplav’s shortform (2025); Planning for Extreme AI Risks (2025) by Joshua Clymer

A frontier AI company (any one, I don’t care which) should close shop and make an announcement along the lines of:

Powerful AI could end the human race. We are too worried that we don’t know how to make this technology safe. We have decided to shut down because we don’t want to be responsible for building the thing that kills us all.

A common refrain among safety-conscious AI developers: “it doesn’t matter if we stop building dangerous AI, because someone else will just build it instead.” Is that really true, though? If a multi-hundred-billion-dollar company comes out and says “We’ve concluded that our product is horribly dangerous, nobody knows how to make it safe, and there’s too high a risk that it leads to human extinction”, this won’t raise any eyebrows? This has no chance of spurring policy-makers into action?

Continue reading
Posted on

Science-driven stories are good for the same reason that character-driven stories are good

(Spoilers in this post are hidden with spoiler tags.)

What made Project Hail Mary so good? Among other reasons, it’s because the science drove the story, instead of the other way around.

Character-driven stories and hard sci-fi might take up opposite positions in the ancient battle of “people vs. things”; but when they work, they work for fundamentally the same reasons.

In mediocre “people”-focused stories, the plot dictates how characters behave. In great people-focused stories, the characters decide what happens.

In mediocre sci-fi, the plot dictates what science and technology can do. In great sci-fi, the science and technology constrain what routes the plot can take.

Continue reading
Posted on

How valuable are weak AI safety regulations?

Image credit: Jebulon

To prevent superintelligent AI from killing everyone, I would like there to be a strong international agreement banning the development of ASI until it can be proven safe. But that sort of agreement requires a lot of political buy-in and coordination. In the meantime, it may be easier to get light-touch AI safety regulations passed. To what extent do weak regulations decrease extinction risk?

In this post:

  • Part I discusses routes by which weak regulations can reduce extinction risk. [More]
  • Part II considers some downsides of weak regulations. [More]
  • Part III reviews specific categories of weak regulation and how they might reduce risk. [More]
Continue reading
Posted on

We Need Breadth-First AI Safety Plans

Depth-first plans lay out a path from here to aligned superintelligent AI. We need those kinds of plans. But depth-first plans depend on many assumptions: “We will make AI safe by doing step 1, then step 2, then step 3.” Step 1 only works under condition A, step 2 requires condition B, step 3 requires condition C. If A or B or C is false, the whole plan fails (and there’s a good chance we all die).

Consider Google’s safety plan from April 2025. To my knowledge, this is the best among the frontier AI companies’ plans.1

Google’s plan depends on a series of conditions:

Continue reading
Posted on

Sentient Welfare Across Three Futures

Three categories of futures, depending on how AI goes:

  1. ASI timelines are long.
  2. ASI timelines are short, and we’re on track to solving AI alignment.
  3. ASI timelines are short, and we’re not on track to solving AI alignment.

If we want to make a good future for all sentient beings, each of these futures has different implications for what we should work on.

Continue reading
Posted on

I sleep less when I exercise more

They say exercise improves sleep quality. Is that true for me?

To test this hypothesis, I took my daily calorie expenditures from the Apple Health app and correlated them with that night’s sleep time.1 I also included caffeine intake as a potential confounding variable.

The hypothesis: when I exercise more, I’ll get better rest that night, and therefore wake up earlier.

The results:2

name coef t-stat p-value
intercept 9.0134 65.072 0.0000
calories -1.6844 -6.967 0.0000
caffeine 0.4157 9.404 0.0000
0.2409    

I sleep 10 minutes less for every additional 100 calories of exercise. Exercise plus caffeine explained 24% of the variance in my sleep time; exercise alone explained 6.6%.

The trend shows up whether or not I have caffeine:

Data are binned into increments of 100 calories. Any bins with fewer than 5 data points are not displayed. Vertical lines show the 95% confidence intervals for each bin.

Continue reading
Posted on

Donation Timing Under Uncertainty About AI Timelines

A few years back, I got a big pile of money from working at a tech startup. I put a lot of that money into a donor-advised fund. Since now I make hardly any money, that DAF might represent the majority of my lifetime donations. How much of my DAF should I donate per year?

In particular, how much should I donate in light of short AI timelines?

I created a simple model to answer this question.

Continue reading
Posted on

I was wrong: concentrated factor portfolios don't have alpha

Previously, I wrote about how investors can simulate leverage via concentrated stock selection. That’s still true as far as I can tell. However, I also wrote something that I now believe to be false: concentrated equal-weighted factor portfolios have alpha on top of value-weighted factor portfolios. The numbers I found before were not wrong per se. However:

  • The alpha came primarily from small-cap and micro-cap stocks. That alpha may not be feasible to capture, or it may be defeated by trading costs; and historical estimates of micro-cap returns are biased upward because closing prices do not accurately represent the average investor’s trade price (Blume & Stambaugh (1983)1).

    When I constructed hypothetical factor portfolios that had high concentration but screened out small-caps, the results did simulate leverage—they had higher returns and volatility than diversified factor portfolios—but alphas were not consistently positive.

  • In the United States (where the data goes back the furthest), the alpha only shows up over the full data series (1927–2025). When restricting to 1964 onward, the alphas are close to zero.
  • Concentrated value and momentum had positive alpha; but when I tested two new factors, profitability and investment, they each had negative alpha.
Continue reading
Posted on

← Newer Page 1 of 22