When he uses the word drift, he means like drift your values, identity, affiliation, the kinds of things that you feel close to.

Is that the place that you were talking about was just the in relationship, the way I can slowly influence a person over time?

Yeah, what are the laws that you need?

But it is interesting, because essentially, you’re painting a vision, Audrey, of like, look, this is a 21st century post-AI democracy, meaning a democracy that can live in the presence of 21st century language model, a large language model level threats, at least some that exist now. I mean, we ...

So, you work on both the human layer and is getting as much decentralized, I mean, you’re working on both layers, because you’re both implementing the technical infrastructure and the resilient Ethereum Web3 IPFS stuff, and also doing the human coordination stuff of shared reality TV channels, 24/7 continuous integration, ...

… Not human coordination level. But you said earlier, though, that humans have to sleep, so I thought I was hearing you say… It’s about your human level coordination rather than your technical…

We’re talking about technical coordination, resilience of systems that automatically…

I just got a call today from my insurance company that they’re pulling out of covering homes in California, because in a way insurance as an institution was built for a smaller number of hospital beds and metaphorically, and as you increase the numerosity of the issues. So, it’s a ...

… How much base load can you take before you overwhelm your emergency room beds and how much, yeah, DDoSing existing institutional capacities, which we say this in our work. It’s like the meta-crisis is the complexity gap, but the increasing the complexity and numerosity of issues and threats. Like ...

Yeah, there’s a lot of things you can do with just having… And like you’re saying, I mean, I think of like institutions have kind of a, it’s sort of like the hospital beds COVID thing, of like how many…

Interesting, super numerous. Because the thing I heard in a podcast about AI from Holden, he’s been funding AI safety for like the last decade, is he said, people are worried about superhuman AI, we should be worrying about super numerous AI. Just like literally having, not whether GPT-5 is ...

And while it’s maybe alarming that there is a general intelligence that’s able to integrate knowledge across, you know, cyber and info and whatever, and how to do chemistry and bio at the same time, its narrow capabilities in one domain, any of those domains, do not exceed currently specialized ...

So, you’re, for example, just to make sure I’m understanding that, like with cybersecurity, we shouldn’t be worrying about GPT-5 or 6 because we already have Pantera and we already have things that are defending against the next generation exploits.

So, like zooming out, how worried… is your default… What’s your view of the default trajectory of what happens with the competitive pressures between Anthropic, Google, OpenAI, et cetera, with scaling laws and with Dario from Anthropic saying two days ago in a podcast that he expects to reach AGI ...

It’s in everyone’s interest to upgrade their integrated models, if it has vulnerabilities that gets the software update. Everyone will want to update to the latest thing if it gets patched.

And we don’t know whether the capabilities that are there, we may find out later that GPT-4 right now has more capabilities than we, like other dangerous capability we’ll discover down the road that right now are available to everyone, but we won’t know that until later because someone will ...

And so that’s an example where like, once we kind of embedded and entangled Facebook Pages and built whole, you know, people have successful, those pages are worth money. It’s like, there’s property there, right? People will literally have a page that has like a 10 million followers for cancer ...

And I think I told you when we did our podcast episode, like I’ve been worried about the example I saw with Facebook Pages. Facebook Pages looked like a totally innocuous, you know, friendly, positive, fun feature until October, 2020, you find out 140 million Americans a month, including the ...

No, no, it’s not actually that. I mean, I actually would love to use all of our time together because I think there’s so much to learn here. I mean, getting back to the main thing, which is we’re mapping what are the endgames with generative AI continuing to scale ...

Fascinating. I have a whole other conversation I’d love to have with you just about how you’re all doing with respect to Chinese attacks I know that it’s been ramping up, but that’s probably not the best part of our time.

Right, right. Even when each and every vendor is assumed to be breached, you’d still proceed with the defense.

Hmm. And then when you say validation, we’re talking about, which… I understand the continuous testing.

And then the question is like, so we’re already living in the same vulnerable world where we’re gonna be living in with more systems that are vulnerable, but like hospital systems around the world are already compromised and industrial systems and water treatment systems and nuclear power plants because things ...

But Audrey’s saying that it’s already true because things like Pentera already exist, right? So, it’s not… this is really actually a big update for us because it means that, obviously the things we’re concerned about with AI are legitimate concerns. It’s just that those capabilities already exist with enough ...

But basically, a vision here for the future is that GPT-5 and GPT-6, if we were to roll out something like this Pentera thing, which would have to be rolled out to like, you know… The problem is that often its dominance balance in… we’re not gonna be able to ...

Yeah. So, the vision of the future of an endgame here is, God, I wish Jeffrey was on this call. He’s at DEFCON actually right now, but he is on our team and studies the intersection of AI and cybersecurity risks. He also worked on nuclear risks and things like ...

Right. So, the good news is that there are things that are capable of identifying a lot of these vulnerabilities right now, which is crazy, because we have such a narrow AI system that sounds like finds how to exploit any system. And that we don’t need to wait for ...

And obviously ideally not release that to the world, but then if the model weights leaked or trying to steal the model and then it had the ability to do that, there’s a lot of things that could be baked into that scenario. So, I mean, I’m curious, do you ...

If GPT-5 or 6 had the ability to find zero-day vulnerabilities in lots of things, what would we do? What’s the right response? Like what should we not, should… if that’s one of the ARC Eval type, you know, capabilities that it’s looking at, does it, do we need it ...

It’s your whole job, yes, you’re an expert in it. One of the open questions that I’ve been holding is like how much worse is, a GPT-4 could find cybersecurity vulnerabilities in code, GPT-3 could not do that, but GPT-4 is limited in the vulnerabilities that it can identify.

Part of it is I’m just not aware of how skilled we are at dealing with cyber threats, and obviously you had to deal with this a lot because of your role.

When we talk to the National Security Council in the US, they’re very interested in what are the existing national security laws that we could… Because everyone’s trying to find ways to leverage the law as it already is written to be able to act on the generative AI issues, ...

So, part of what you’re saying though is that there are existing cybersecurity laws that you’re leveraging to enable this?

I don’t know, I’m thinking about this in real time in the Ouija board of this conversation, but like in thinking about like, is there an institution in your mind that could be like a EPA for the epistemic commons that makes distinctions about the kinds of speech that has ...

And we can care about making different distinctions about the kind of speech that includes a complexity and synthesizes multiple worldviews versus the kind of speech which does ad hominem attacks and denies other worldviews.

But then the question is, we don’t have an institution that is the effectively a kind of 10-dimensional speech police, but speech police that cares about the, they’re the epistemology police, and they’re less police and more like safety standards. It’s like more like an EPA, but for epistemology.

And that we will care about whether the implications of this speech will lead someone to believe a true, truthful, and representatively true thing epistemologically, so we can reason about consequentialism of speech when people are trying to be truthful. Care about speech that uses one example of a person ...

I know that you have such limited time, but that is a conversation that I think needs to happen. So, but just to say, he’ll use the framing that for speech, it’s not about whether it’s fact-checking, we need whether it’s true, truthful, and representative, because that deals with decontextualization, ...

Okay, can I make that introduction?

Oh my God.

And an example there that we take from Daniel Schmachtenberger… By the way, have you ever met Daniel?

Yeah, exactly. Well, and so we use both philosophical concepts and institutions whose mandate did not include the increased dimensionality of potential harm. So for example, free speech versus censorship is a two-dimensional answer to a many more dimensional problem of virality, engagement-based ranking AI, plus virality.

And revenge porn, and automating a bank run by saying, here’s fake photos of people standing in front of banks, with Wells Fargo and Citibank logos that’s completely decoupled from the material reality.

In that case, there are choke points in a bunch of the fields, so like the number of people who have access to the DNA synthesizers or whatever in that hardware. So, you’re just talking about, so in domains where there’s an existing institution, and there’s a concern about an ...

I think I didn’t catch all of that. Aza, are you tracking?

When we have externalities that are showing up in these other quadrants, like for example, Facebook doesn’t make people, or Instagram and their doom scrolling doesn’t make people feel very good, but that isn’t measured in the systems. It’s not internalized. So, as we’re thinking about 21st century institutions with ...

No, no. And just to close out the series, you’re getting the full picture, Audrey. Like we’re just interested in, so how do in the Ken Wilber model of like first person, second person, and then singular and plural, like first person subjective experience of a singular person is like ...

You’re saying from AI, so equivalent of DuPont chemistry saying “better living through chemistry.” And then basically we end up with PFAS that are literally invisible. Aza just got like a body, full-body test. And I have done full body tests. And you realize that you actually have this stuff ...

I feel like they, I didn’t maybe read this statement closely, but it does feel like Facebook is generally of the opinion that risks are overblown because that’s the, maybe I’m captured by their previous rhetoric on social media where their whole business model is to deny the risks and ...

Well, no, I think there might have been a miscommunication. Aza was talking about when Meta released LLaMa 2, they actually gathered signatures of people to endorse the fact that these models and releasing them in an open way is a good thing.