Alex Wissner-Gross

That's where we're going to end up falling behind from a geopolitical perspective.

I'm more worried about the Frontier Labs self-policing more aggressively than the government ever would and stifling competition that way.

I think that's a far scarier future.

My favorite part, Peter, was that selfie that you took of the three of us at the end, three generations of singularitarians.

That was just an incredible moment.

My sense is, everything changed with Mythos.

And I have to add the caveat, it appears based on a number of public cybersecurity benchmarks that GPT-5.5, which unlike Claude Mythos, is actually generally available as stronger at these cybersecurity benchmarks.

But I think looking back from near future history, so looking back historically,

I think we'll view the mythos moment, if you will, as a sea change when the civilian sector, the frontier AI labs, suddenly had capabilities that leapfrogged government capabilities, where specifically mythos was suddenly able to, and as Peter, as you and I talk about in Solve Everything, where entire disciplines get solved at once, with the mythos moment, cybersecurity, and in particular, vulnerability discovery,

getting effectively solved, for some definition of solved, by AI for the first time in the private sector, leapfrogging what possibly the NSA or other government agencies had internally.

This was a moment when the government, even an aggressively deregulatory government, an AI-friendly government, as the present administration is, sort of woke up and realized, hey, wait a minute,

These are leapfrog capabilities coming from the private sector.

They could lead to vulnerabilities in government systems, vulnerabilities in industrial and SCADA systems throughout the economy.

Maybe actually some sort of light touch gatekeeping mechanism might actually be merited at this point.

I think without putting my finger on the scale of whether this is actually a good idea or not, not answering the normative question, I think it's a natural time to at least be answering the question of whether certain advanced capabilities are perhaps in some sense naturally gate-kept by some quasi-governmental entity.

There was always a bit of a moat there, even before any new executive orders.

I'm thinking in particular of export controls that do regulate the ability for open source or closed source capabilities to be shared with the public.

There's the Invention Secrecy Act that's been statutorily on the books for many decades that functions as a sort of gatekeeping for anyone who wants to file a patent application that touches on certain sensitive areas.

There's the Atomic Energy Act from the early 1950s that also gatekeeps certain elements of new applied physics.

So, it's not as if we're suddenly entering some brave new world where the government, this administration or some other administration suddenly decides that new technologies must be gatekept