@futureoflife.org AI Action Summit Lead Imane (Ima) Bello has put together a useful guide for policymakers to navigate the AI Action Summit in Paris on 10-11 February:

AI companions are on the rise, but what are the possible long-term effects on people and society?

@jamiebernardi.bsky.social examines the potential benefits and risks - both individual and systemic - of this type of AI service.

www.adalovelaceinstitute.org/blog/ai-comp...

Important underscussed point on the OpenAI $100bn deal: money is not coming from the USG.

Trump is announcing a private deal, whilst promising to make “emergency declarations” to allow Stargate to generate its own electricity (h/t @nytimes.com). Musk says 100bn not yet raised.

I see debate on what Altman meant by "we know how to build AGI", so here's my take: I don't think there's much more to it than claiming the general o3 scaffold == "AGI".

With faster hardware and more efficient algorithms, he claims AGI is job-done. Inferring anything more seems like an overreaction

UK PM: "The last govt was right to establish the world-leading AISI, and we'll build on it. This month the UK will lead the first ever global AIS test. [However] we shouldn't just focus on safety and leave the rest to the market, the govt has a responsibility to make it work for working people"

Similar effect in AI policy. Many seniors in AI policy today have PhDs.

Is this because a PhD is necessary to get on in AI Policy? Having mulled this over a bunch, my current conclusion is no: it's because there was nowhere else to spend all your time thinking & reading on AI governance until 2022.

I've seen versions of this take a couple of times now.

My sense is some pundits are unable to hold 2 things true at once: that disinfo is driven by a deep, systemic demand for it (what Politico argues), but also we should take steps to prevent its supply (what Politico fails to argue).