Rob Wiblin

And they'll be facing tremendous pressure at that point from their competitors to stay ahead.

My guess is that unless they have much more robust commitments than they have right now, they probably just won't be directing that much of their AI labor.

If they have 100,000 really smart human equivalents, maybe only 100 of them are working on AI safety, which is maybe still more than they had before in human labor, but not that much compared to how quickly things are going.

Yeah, I mean, I think that particular contract is probably going to run into big antitrust issues.

Yeah, I think that's a possibility.

I do think it's a bit tough.

This is not the kind of thing it's super easy to make laws about because it's really not a box checking exercise.

When you write the legislation that half the compute must be spent on safety rather than capabilities,

Like, what do you count as safety research?

And like, how are you enforcing this?

Like, do you have like auditors in there being like, what are you working on?

What are you working on to like all the team leads in the companies and like, you know, checking off that they have that it's 50% safety.

I can imagine stuff like that.

I think it would require like extremely technically deep regulators that like we just don't really have right now, I think.

Yeah, I think that's a possibility.

I don't think it's the most likely way it fails.

On my views, I think the most likely way it fails is that they don't go super hard on it.

But I think it's also plausible that they're just trying to get the AIs to help with alignment and the AIs are just like,

misaligned and the control procedures and other things are like ineffective and so they just deliberately only help with further AI R&D and don't help with alignment and safety and biodefense and like all these other things you'd want them to help with.

I would hope that at that stage the transparency regime is strong enough that that fact