Invitation for bets I’m willing to bet that Anthropic’s revenue growth over the next year will be slower than its revenue growth over the last 3 years. I proposed a specific bet here. Anyone who wants can offer to take the other side of that bet. Or you can make a counteroffer. I’m also willing to make a longer-term bet that the AI industry is in a bubble. I proposed a specific bet for that, too, here. Feel free to offer to take the other side of that bet or make a counteroffer. I’d also be open to other bets. It seems pointless to bet about whether AGI or transformative AI will be deployed within the next 5-10 years, yet, for the heck of it, I would agree to a bet against that, too. (I’ll make bets for small, nominal amounts of money to be donated to the winner’s charity of choice, since the practical and legal problems with betting are too large otherwise.) I’d also bet against the deployment of 100,000+ SAE Level 5 fully autonomous vehicles in North America within the next 3 years, if anyone has a strong opinion on that. I’d make a similar bet against the deployment of autonomous humanoid robots in North American households, although we’d have to come up with some specific resolution criteria. Similarly, I’d bet against any significant level of near-term labour automation by LLMs or generative AI. Or against LLMs becoming capable of performing all sorts of specific tasks well. On any of these topics, I’m also open to invitations for a public dialogue. (More on that topic here.)

If you ever need a classic rap song to communicate your desire to be more influential in animal philanthropy, just say: I wish I was a little bit taller I wish I was a Bollard

SMBC by Zach Weinersmith is doing a great job of conveying AI Safety memes more widely. Relevant comics: https://www.smbc-comics.com/comic/speech https://www.smbc-comics.com/comic/safe https://www.smbc-comics.com/comic/ai-17 https://www.smbc-comics.com/comic/ai-15 I would love to see his take on illustrated AI Safety book, like 'Open Borders' meets 'If anyone builds it, everyone dies'.

I sometimes hear complaints from non-native English speakers about how banning undisclosed LLM use in writing is unfair. Possible pro-tip for non-native English speakers who want to write well but don't want to sound like AI: Just write an article you want to write in your native language, polish it until you're proud of it in your native language, and then ask a frontier LLM (Opus 4.8, Gemini 3.1 Pro, ChatGPT 5.5 Pro) to translate it to English, while reasonably adhering to your original intent and writing. In my experience and tests, the LLMs are sufficiently faithful in their translations that even the naivest possible way to do this (just one-to-one translation by a LLM without any further changes) would not trigger Pangram. I strongly suspect they wouldn't trigger human allergies either[1]. I suspect if you're upfront about your process, most people would be happy to read your translated words as well. Just explicitly state at the top of your post that you wrote the whole thing in Chinese/French/Romanian/Portuguese (with link to your draft) and you asked an LLM to translate it. If enough people do this, I think we'll have a natural new equilibrium where some people opt out of LLM-mediated translations, but the vast majority of your old readers will come back. I think this is also much healthier and less tenuous than the current equilibrium where people clearly use LLMs to formulate their writing, lie about it, and then when confronted hide behind "non-native speaker" as an excuse. (Optionally, you can ask the LLM to explain the non-trivial translation choices it made in its translations, which can help you with deciding whether to approve of the changes or not, and also learn English more in the mean-time. Though my guess is that it's not strictly necessary.) [1] (I've asked native speakers of other languages to test this, one for Swahili and one for Chinese. Both agreed that the results sound generic compared to the original writing but do not sound like

Lots of EA orgs say they struggle to hire for ops, marketing and comms. But when they post listings for these roles the salaries are often much lower than what they offer for research and engineering, which they generally find easier to fill. My guess is that orgs are just benchmarking against normal market rates for these roles. But the EA labour market is very different to the normal labour market, if these roles are undersupplied inside EA, I think orgs should be willing to pay more for them.