Rob Wiblin

What's driving that?

You think that's more likely now?

Interesting.

So coming back to the loss of control stuff,

The companies are currently spending hundreds of billions of dollars collectively on the capital build-out, on the training runs.

They're barreling forward to build the most powerful agents that they basically can with very few constraints.

I suppose some constraints in a few cases, but very little restraint.

How in the world that we're actually in, what can Law Zero do to, I guess, get this...

approach on the agenda more and to make sure that basically they don't just go ahead and build a super intelligent agentic AI that's very dangerous while largely ignoring what you're doing or saying that might be nice in theory, but there's no time.

This is a distraction.

Yep.

really between the lines of paraphrasing anthropics view, I think they think that what they're doing shouldn't be allowed.

Their view is that it probably should be illegal.

Maybe not what they've done now, but what they're going to do, what they're expecting to do.

But they say, well, we have to do it because otherwise other people will do it even more dangerously anyway.

And there's like, there's no, yeah, there's nothing.

So as a first approximation, are you saying, I guess in the case where we're using the scientist AI as a monitor primarily, basically it's going to double the compute cost because now you have to build two models.

You build the original one in the current style and then you build a scientist AI that you want to be equally capable using a different way of rejigging the data and a different training goal.

And so it's like you need twice as much compute.

But I guess that's a like...