Published on February 9, 2025 9:52 PM GMT
First part just talks about scaling laws, nothing really new. Second part is apparently his latest thoughts on a post-AGI world. Key part:
While we never want to be reckless and there will likely be some major decisions and limitations related to AGI safety that will be unpopular, directionally, as we get closer to achieving AGI, we believe that trending more towards individual empowerment is important; the other likely path we can see is AI being used by authoritarian governments to control their population through mass surveillance and loss of autonomy.
Ensuring that the benefits of AGI are broadly distributed is critical. The historical impact of technological progress suggests that most of the metrics we care about (health outcomes, economic prosperity, etc.) get better on average and over the long-term, but increasing equality does not seem technologically determined and getting this right may require new ideas.In particular, it does seem like the balance of power between capital and labor could easily get messed up, and this may require early intervention. We are open to strange-sounding ideas like giving some “compute budget” to enable everyone on Earth to use a lot of AI, but we can also see a lot of ways where just relentlessly driving the cost of intelligence as low as possible has the desired effect.
Anyone in 2035 should be able to marshall the intellectual capacity equivalent to everyone in 2025; everyone should have access to unlimited genius to direct however they can imagine.
Edit to add commentary:
That last part sounds like he thinks everyone should be on speaking terms with an ASI by 2035? If you just assume alignment succeeds, I think this is a directionally reasonable goal - no permanent authoritarian rule, ASI helps you as little or as much as you desire.
Discuss
