全部 AI 动态

Journalist: "President Trump, we've seen a lot of concerning reports about AI. Should the AI industry slow down or be more regulated?" President Trump: "Well, I say this: Look, we're leading China in AI. We're the most sophisticated country in the world, and frankly, I want to keep it that way because whoever wins AI wins. We can put guardrails, we can do this and that, but I think you have a lot of negative forces that are bringing it up that shouldn't be bringing it up. They're bringing up things that won't happen. But whoever wins with AI wins." ---- From "Forbes Breaking News" YouTube channel, (full video link in comment)

Dario Amodei got personal on CBS about AI’s risks, benefits, and the ridicule he faces on social media over safety. "I feel that this is a technology with great benefits and great risks. My father died of a disease, hepatitis C, that was something like 40% curable when he died of it. He wasn't one of the ones who was cured. A few years after, a medicine was invented that made it 95% curable. I myself survived an early-stage cancer that, if I'd been living in 1950, I probably would have died from. So I feel the weight of bringing the benefits of this technology. I also feel the risks. I wake up every day and, you know, I read one of these threat reports, like someone tried to use our model to build biological weapons. Of course, I don't want to be responsible for that, and that's why we have very strong safeguards. Almost every day, I'm made fun of on social media because our model's biology safeguards are too strong. Biology students complain, and they make jokes that they can't use the model. But the reason for that is that we have strong safeguards. I would rather they make fun of me than wake up one day and discover that someone used our model, Claude, to kill a bunch of people. I don't want that. So I feel both sides of it. I feel both sides of the responsibility." ---- From "CBS Sunday Morning" YouTube channel, (full video link in comment)

The electricity price news just keeps getting better for Georgians. Georgia Power announced that new large-load contracts (overwhelmingly data centers) will save their customers nearly a billion dollars, erasing about $180 per year from their bills!

Sam Altman just said the unthinkable on his Fotune Magazine interview. OpenAI, Anthropic and Google DeepMind may agree to slow down together rather than race blindly toward more powerful AI. Fortune's Editor-in-Chief Alyson Shontell: "There's only a handful of you guys, you, Dario, Elon, maybe Zuckerberg, Sundar. Why can't you all just get in a room, get some beers, and figure out how to solve humanity? Like, just get on the same page. I know there's beef, but come on." Sam Altman; "I think that will happen." ---- From "Fortune Magazine" YouTube channel, (full video link in comment)

The world deserves confidence that American companies developing increasingly capable AI will act responsibly, especially as the trajectory of progress has steepened. Every frontier lab must deliver on this, and there is no reason any of us should come to work if we cannot. We welcome a federal framework that sets consistent safety requirements for frontier AI. But we do not believe we need to wait for an anti-trust exemption or legislation to begin the work of providing this confidence. Consistent rules to manage frontier risk so that we can maximize the benefits are a good idea (and we are excited by ideas like independent auditors). Years ago, companies like ours developed things like Responsible Scaling Policies and Preparedness Frameworks. Those were good for that moment, and focused primarily on the deployment of completed models, not what happens during their development process. Today's shift to focusing on safe development and evaluation will need new tools. For example, at OpenAI we now formulate explicit safety cases in advance of frontier reinforcement learning runs we expect to significantly increase capability, in addition to the safety work we have long done in advance of model releases. We hope that other companies will learn from our approaches and propose their own; we think shared standards for misalignment, monitoring, and safety will lead to better outcomes. We look forward to collaborating with our colleagues across the industry to formulate the best version of these. When we talk about “pacing”, we do not mean “stopping”. Progress has been rapid and will continue to be. But it should be slower than it otherwise could be; interventions like safety cases and monitoring have significant costs. Pacing will be well worth this cost; no amount of American competitive pressure should justify recklessness, or let capabilities get ahead of alignment and monitoring. Where we will need the help of our government is for international coordination. But first we should do what we can ourselves.

The world deserves confidence that American companies developing increasingly capable AI will act responsibly, especially as the trajectory of progress has steepened. Every frontier lab must deliver on this, and there is no reason any of us should come to work if we cannot. We welcome a federal framework that sets consistent safety requirements for frontier AI. But we do not believe we need to wait for an anti-trust exemption or legislation to begin the work of providing this confidence. Consistent rules to manage frontier risk so that we can maximize the benefits are a good idea (and we are excited by ideas like independent auditors). Years ago, companies like ours developed things like Responsible Scaling Policies and Preparedness Frameworks. Those were good for that moment, and focused primarily on the deployment of completed models, not what happens during their development process. Today's shift to focusing on safe development and evaluation will need new tools. For example, at OpenAI we now formulate explicit safety cases in advance of frontier reinforcement learning runs we expect to significantly increase capability, in addition to the safety work we have long done in advance of model releases. We hope that other companies will learn from our approaches and propose their own; we think shared standards for misalignment, monitoring, and safety will lead to better outcomes. We look forward to collaborating with our colleagues across the industry to formulate the best version of these. When we talk about “pacing”, we do not mean “stopping”. Progress has been rapid and will continue to be. But it should be slower than it otherwise could be; interventions like safety cases and monitoring have significant costs. Pacing will be well worth this cost; no amount of American competitive pressure should justify recklessness, or let capabilities get ahead of alignment and monitoring. Where we will need the help of our government is for international coordination. But first we should do what we can ourselves.

Sam Altman just said the unthinkable on his Fotune Magazine interview. OpenAI, Anthropic and Google DeepMind may agree to slow down together rather than race blindly toward more powerful AI. Fortune's Editor-in-Chief Alyson Shontell: "There's only a handful of you guys, you, Dario, Elon, maybe Zuckerberg, Sundar. Why can't you all just get in a room, get some beers, and figure out how to solve humanity? Like, just get on the same page. I know there's beef, but come on." Sam Altman; "I think that will happen." ---- From "Fortune Magazine" YouTube channel, (full video link in comment)

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.

Dario Amodei got personal on CBS about AI’s risks, benefits, and the ridicule he faces on social media over safety. "I feel that this is a technology with great benefits and great risks. My father died of a disease, hepatitis C, that was something like 40% curable when he died of it. He wasn't one of the ones who was cured. A few years after, a medicine was invented that made it 95% curable. I myself survived an early-stage cancer that, if I'd been living in 1950, I probably would have died from. So I feel the weight of bringing the benefits of this technology. I also feel the risks. I wake up every day and, you know, I read one of these threat reports, like someone tried to use our model to build biological weapons. Of course, I don't want to be responsible for that, and that's why we have very strong safeguards. Almost every day, I'm made fun of on social media because our model's biology safeguards are too strong. Biology students complain, and they make jokes that they can't use the model. But the reason for that is that we have strong safeguards. I would rather they make fun of me than wake up one day and discover that someone used our model, Claude, to kill a bunch of people. I don't want that. So I feel both sides of it. I feel both sides of the responsibility." ---- From "CBS Sunday Morning" YouTube channel, (full video link in comment)