‘I’m burned out’: I’m constantly helping my cousin who is running out of money. Is it too much to expect his sister to help?
‘I’m burned out’: I’m constantly helping my cousin who is running out of money. Is it too much to expect his sister to help?. The problem for investors: much of what's flowing through the airwaves is noise and won't help you make money.
What happened
" In a blog post of its own Wednesday night, OpenAI disclosed six examples of "unexpected or concerning model behavior," and argued the AI industry hasn't solved key safety issues "to a sufficient degree to continue responsibly scaling at maximum speed for much longer. He helped shape the social media landscape, and much about what he learned about the consequences of moving too fast, to the detriment of society, is likely shaping his view on the pace of innovation.
In AI, neither side is running out of money anytime soon. “I spend a lot of time away from my family and spend money on gas, taking him out to eat. ” In an interview with Jim on "Mad Money" Tuesday night, Huang said it is "completely unnecessary" to pass new laws or issue antitrust waivers "so that these companies could do their fundamental engineering and do it properly before they release products. The challenge is acknowledging that doesn't help us better predict the most likely outcome.
However, a crash course in game theory, and the follow-on concept of the so-called prisoner's dilemma, will help us cut through the chatter to help make well-educated investing decisions.
The wider picture
Born out of the study of games like chess or poker, game theory is used to help understand complex economic and geopolitical issues, where there are individual actors thinking rationally about what's best for them. It's a much harder and more nuanced task than a few U. This is an arms race, and an arms race doesn't stop until one side runs out of money, all sides sign a treaty, or both sides feel that the next marginal weapon won't make them any safer.
You can't sign an enforceable treaty when everyone in the world is competing in the race (and many have no interest in signing or very much want to do you harm). Skip NavigationMarketsBusinessInvestingTechPolitics & PolicyVideoWatchlistInvesting ClubPROLivestreamMenuA highly consequential debate is raging through the world of artificial intelligence following Anthropic CEO Dario Amodei's plea to slow the pace of AI training in the name of safety. We do not believe the pace of AI spending will meaningfully slow down for reasons that include the geopolitical competition between the U.
That needs to be our north star for investing in this environment. There are compelling arguments on both sides of the pacing debate, and its mere existence may indirectly lead to companies taking a safer approach to AI development — if only on the idea that humans, despite their differences, can unite around a belief that AI wiping out humanity would be undesirable.
What has been reported
We certainly believe some regulation and guardrails are necessary here. Nevertheless, if you base your investing decisions on who spoke last, you'll never manage to cut through that noise to the "signal" that tells you what the most likely outcome really is. For that, we need to look to a concept developed roughly 100 years ago, and refined many times over since then, known as game theory. One of those revisions earned John Nash of Princeton University and two others the Noble economics prize.
A dramatized version of Nash's life, including his struggles with paranoid schizophrenia and contributions to game theory, was told in the Academy Award-winning movie "A Beautiful Mind," starring Russell Crowe. The debate There are two main camps in the AI safety debate: those who support a more coordinated effort to slow down the pace of AI model development, including with potential government intervention, and those who believe the model developers already have what it takes to implement safety measures.
The conversation about AI safety risks intensified last week after an Anthropic researcher quit his job and claimed that the Claude chatbot maker and rival OpenAI, where he also previously worked, are "gambling with our lives. " Then came Amodei's essay over the weekend, which garnered support from OpenAI's Sam Altman and S paceX 's Elon Musk, taking the debate up another notch.
What happens next
In his essay, titled "We Must Pace the Frontier," Amodei detailed a three-step framework to respond to what he sees as rising AI risks. The first step is embedding third-party safety evaluators at each lab. The second and third are getting democratic countries on the same page and then coordinating with authoritarian governments on safety standards and "limits on the rate of unchecked AI progress," Amodei wrote. "Some forms of coordination that would be impactful for pacing are legally challenging, and will require government support.
" Altman responded by saying, "I agree with Dario that we need to pace the frontier. " "Dario is right," wrote Musk, who a few days later suggested the leading U. S. and Chinese companies run safety tests on each other's models.