Sayash Kapoor

Both of us value the ability of external third parties to be able to see what's going on inside companies.

In fact,

I mean, we were just talking backstage about Anthropix release of Fable 5 and the fact that the model purposefully is degraded for tasks involving AI R&D.

And I think I speak for both of us when I say that this is a very dangerous precedent.

We shouldn't be fine tuning our models in such a way that they lie to the customers.

Companies shouldn't be sort of allowed to do this.

They should act in good faith.

And so that's the sort of thing where we have a lot of policy agreement.

I do think there are areas where we diverge.

For example, there might be sort of in these more aggressive scenarios, you might want a conditional slowdown.

You might want companies to pause.

Whereas when you consider AI as normal technology, the benefits of diffusion of AI and the development of more capable AI systems perhaps outweigh the risks a little bit more.

But at least in the near term,

And it was funny when we sort of, I spoke to Thomas, who's another of one of the co-authors of AI 2027.

We spent hours trying to figure out where it is on the timelines that we actually disagree.

And it was funny because we couldn't find any near-term disagreements.

I mean, we wrote this blog post together where we say that, you know, I agree completely with the events of AI 2027, or like at least find them plausible until the end of 2026, which is a long time.

We wrote this last year.

And so in some sense, I think,

there is much more common ground in terms of policy than you might think.