Artificial Intelligence

The tone of AI stock behavior has changed in important ways this spring.

Until March, they were clearly undervalued, and were quietly and somewhat patiently being accumulated by the minority of investors who realized the significance of AI. Recent buying has been less patient, occasionally mildly panicky, and indicates that awareness of AI is steadily spreading toward mainstream investors.

In a normal year, closing the Strait of Hormuz would impact the stock market much more than any other problem. But for the past few weeks AI has clearly been having a bigger impact on the market. Almost big enough for markets to forget about Hormuz. It’s weird that rising oil prices haven’t much hurt non-AI stocks.

Continue Reading

Book review: The Infinity Machine: Demis Hassabis, DeepMind, and the Quest for Superintelligence, by Sebastian Mallaby.

This book is a very good history of DeepMind.

Ender versus the pure scientist

An important theme of the book is that Hassabis identifies as pure scientist, valuing knowledge for its own sake. He wants to surpass Newton and Einstein at understanding reality.

He also identifies powerfully with Ender Wiggin, wanting to play a pivotal role in a critical interaction between two groups of intelligences.

I see some important tension between these two goals. Are they sufficiently similar that he can accomplish them both? Or is he dividing his effort between them in a way that sabotages his chances of success? Mallaby doesn’t answer.

Continue Reading

I participated, as a superforecaster, in the Forecasting Research Institute (FRI) Forecasting the Economic Effects of AI survey. They’ve published their results in this 224 page paper.

My prior experience in the Existential Risk Persuasion Tournament led me to expect that the average participant would predict less AI impact than I predicted, but I was still shocked by the extent of the disagreement.

Continue Reading

What a weekend. Two new wars in Asia don’t qualify as top news.

My first reaction to Hegseth’s conflict with Anthropic was along the lines of: I expected an attempt at quasi-nationalization of AI, but not this soon. And I expected it to look like it was managed by national security professionals. Hegseth doesn’t look like he’s trying to avoid the role of cartoon villain.

On closer inspection, it doesn’t look very much like nationalization. A significant part of what’s going on is bribery. OpenAI’s president donated $25 million to a Trump PAC. Dario supported Harris in 2024, and hasn’t shown signs of shifting his support. The speed with which the Department of War started negotiating with OpenAI suggests that rewarding OpenAI was one of their motivations. If Hegseth wanted to avoid the appearance of corruption, he’d have waited a bit, and pretended to shop around. But bribery seems to be currently legal, and advertising the benefits is likely to be good for business.

On the other hand, his attempts to look like he’s punishing Anthropic look sufficiently clumsy that I’m confused as to whether he wants them to be effective. He advertised Anthropic as both having the best AI and as having the most integrity. I’m pretty sure that’s good for Anthropic’s business.

The breadth of Hegseth’s proposed supply chain risk order is well in excess of what he can plausibly enforce. Polymarket predicts almost no net harm to Anthropic. I’m confused as to what Hegseth expects, and what will happen when his expectations bump up against reality.

Continue Reading

TL;DR: Anthropic has made important progress at setting good goals for AIs. More work is still needed.

Anthropic has introduced a constitution that has a modest chance of becoming as important as the US constitution (Summary and discussion here).

It’s a large improvement over how AI companies were training ethics into AIs a few years ago. It feels like Anthropic has switched from treating Claude like a child to treating it as an adult.

The constitution looks good for AIs of 2026, so I will focus here on longer-term concerns.

Continue Reading

I’m analyzing what happens to the US economy in the short-term aftermath of the typical job being replaced by AIs and robots. Will there be a financial crisis? Short answer: yes.

This is partly inspired by my dissatisfaction with Tomas Pueyo’s analysis in If I Were King, How Would I Prepare for AI?.

Let’s say 50% of workers lose their jobs at the same time (around 2030), and they’re expected to be permanently unemployed. (I know this isn’t fully realistic. I’m starting with simple models and will add more realism later.)

Continue Reading

Who benefits if the US develops artificial superintelligence (ASI) faster than China?

One possible answer is that AI kills us all regardless of which country develops it first. People who base their policy on that concern already agree with the conclusions of this post, so I won’t focus on that concern here.

This post aims to convince other people, especially people who focus on democracy versus authoritarianism, to be less concerned about which country develops ASI first. I will assume that AIs will be fully aligned with at least one human, and that the effects of AI will be roughly as important as the industrial revolution, or a bit more important.

Continue Reading