Thanks for asking! So you're saying I can use the bot to summarise any post just by tagging it in the comments?

I didn't want to read all of @LintzA's post on the "The Game Board has been Flipped" and all 43+ comments, so I copy/pasted the entire webpage into Claude with the following prompt: "Please give me a summary of the authors argument (dot points, explained simply) and then give me a summary of the kinds of support and push back they got (dot points, explained simply, thematised, giving me a sense of the concentration/popularity of themes in the push back)"

Below is the result (the Forum team might want to consider how posts with large numbers of comments can be read quickly):

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 

Main Arguments:

• Recent developments require a complete rethink of AI safety strategy, particularly:
  • AI timelines are getting much shorter (leaders like Sam Altman expecting AGI within 3 years)
  • Trump's likely presidency changes the political landscape for regulation
  • New technical developments (like Deepseek and inference scaling) mean capabilities are advancing faster than expected
  • China is closer to US capabilities than previously thought
  • AI labs are becoming more secretive about their work
• Key implications according to the author:
  • Safety strategies that take several years may be too slow to matter
  • Need to completely rethink how to communicate AI risk to appeal to conservative audiences
  • Working inside AI labs may be more important as capabilities become more hidden
  • The US has less of an advantage over China than previously thought
  • International agreements may be more important than previously believed

Common Themes in Response (ordered by apparent prominence in comments):

Strong Agreement/Supporting Points:

• Many commenters appreciated the comprehensive overview of recent developments
• Several agreed with the need to rethink strategies given shorter timelines

Major Points of Disagreement:

• Working at AI Labs
  • Multiple prominent commenters (including Buck and Holly Elmore) pushed back strongly against the author's suggestion that working at AI labs is increasingly important
  • They argued that lab workers have limited influence on safety and risk being "captured" by lab interests
  • Some suggested external pressure might be more effective
• Strategy and Movement Focus:
  • Several commenters argued for more emphasis on trying to pause AI development
  • Some questioned whether shifting focus away from EU/UK engagement was wise
  • Discussion about whether mass movement building should be prioritized

Technical/Factual Corrections:

• Some corrections on specific claims about timeline estimates
• Discussion about terminology (e.g., "open source" vs "open weights")

Other Notable Points:

• Questions about the US vs China framing
• Debate about whether compute advantages still matter given recent developments
• Discussion about the value of different political strategies (bipartisan vs partisan approaches)

Overall Tone of Reception: The piece appears to have been well-received as a useful overview of recent developments, but with significant pushback on specific strategic recommendations, particularly around working at AI labs and political strategy.

One axis where Capabilities and Safety people pull apart the most, with high consequences is on "asking for forgiveness instead of permission."

1) Safety people need to get out there and start making stuff without their high prestige ally nodding first
2) Capabilities people need to consider more seriously that they're building something many people simply do not want

If they’re from ANZ (or coming to ANZ) I’m happy to chat with them :)

Larry Ellison, who will invest tens of billions in Stargate said uberveillance via AGI will be great because  then police and the populace would always have to be on their best behaviour. It is best to assume the people pushing 8 billion of us into the singularity have psychopathy (or similar disorders). This matters because we need to know who we're going up against: there is no rationalising with these people. They aren't counting the QALYs!

Footage of Larry’s point of view starts around 12.00 on Matt Wolf’s video

 

In the last 48 hours Dario said 3-5 years until AGI!

If I wasn’t working on AI Safety I’d work on near term (< 5 years) animal welfare interventions.

Fwiw www.aisafetyanz.com.au was a pretty easy setup using wix. Maybe 10 hours of work (initially).

AI Safety has less money, talent, political capital, tech and time. We have only one distinct advantage: support from the general public. We need to start working that advantage immediately.