Senior writer and editor @coeff_giving. Author of END TIMES. Email [email protected]
New York
Joined October 2009
- Tweets3.5K
- Following2K
- Followers20.2K
- Likes1.2K
Pinned Tweet
Some professional news: after four and a half years at Vox, I’ll be joining @coeff_giving as a senior writer and editor, with a focus on global catastrophic risks.
Bryan Walsh retweeted
Any new social security expansion needs to be a new Paid Family Leave for parents with young children
Existing social security for seniors needs to be securely funded, yes, but is not and should not be next in line for spending expansion
Bryan Walsh retweeted
People on Twitter will really be like "You believe in donating to charity X? That pales in effectiveness to my strategy, donating to charity Y" and then not donate to charity Y
Bryan Walsh retweeted
Nvidia is the Old Faithful of Falsehoods on this issue. Could journalists please point out that we've known this to be false for years? E.g.:
teapawt.net/RyanFedasiuk/status/15…
The Chinese military is buying high-end computer chips designed by 🇺🇸 companies to power its next-generation weapon systems.
Here's what @kelmgren, Ellen Lu, and I found in our latest investigation for @CSETGeorgetown — and how to stop it.
🧵 1/17
cset.georgetown.edu/publicat…
Bryan Walsh retweeted
Based on the report, many people now think it’s much more likely that AI companies will build superintelligence in 2027 or 2028.
That would be a massive deal and it’s good the public knows!
teapawt.net/RyanGreenblatt/status/…
This report on AI R&D automation (RSI) is a big update towards ASI within 1-2 years. It says AI progress is sped up by RSI right now by around 2x. In AI 2027, this happens around March 2027.
I was seriously wrong about RSI speed up; I previously expected much less in 2026 (around 1.15x-1.3x). It seems as though there was specific privately available evidence that would have changed my mind.
I haven't seen an unredacted version of this report; this is purely about the public report. Because so much of the underlying evidence was redacted from the public report, I think conclusions about things other than the observed 2x faster rate of progress on benchmarks depend significantly on trust for the authors of the report. (E.g., conclusions about whether this speed up is from RSI depend on trust.) I do trust the authors of the report a lot to be careful and rigorous and generally do a good job. (Note that I also work at METR.) Less extensive redactions would greatly reduce this need for trust.
Since in my current role I may have access to other confidential information that could be relevant to timelines one way or another, I unfortunately cannot state my all-things-considered views on ASI timelines or the probability of a software intelligence explosion right now. Here, I’ve done some analysis of the implications using my previous public statements.
A 2x acceleration in overall AI progress from RSI corresponds to a much larger than 2x RSI speed up for AI software R&D (algorithms and data); I did an estimate using my public preexisting modeling of drivers of AI progress and the public report which yielded a very rough estimate of 4.5x for how much RSI is currently accelerating AI software progress (relative to no AI automation). In the AI 2027 scenario, this much acceleration happens around March 2027.
Here are the worked details of this estimate based on my public modeling. There are two main reasons RSI speed up of AI software R&D must be larger:
- Not all of AI progress is from better software (some is from scaling up compute in training runs). I've previously speculated that around 2/3 of AI progress is from software improvements which implies that 2x overall AI progress acceleration requires 3x faster software progress.
- Diminishing returns: A fixed amount of progress requires more work over time, so to ongoingly maintain 3x faster software progress via AI automation, you need increasingly large speed boosts from AI automation (as in, speed ups relative to how fast software R&D would go without AI automation). Based on this report, it seems that there is a substantial amount of additional AI progress from automation that has occurred.
We can estimate the effects of diminishing returns by first determining how many additional years of software progress we've seen (relative to the preexisting trend) and then estimating how much software R&D would slow down after a year of software progress if you held inputs fixed due to diminishing returns. I've previously estimated software R&D would slow down by around 2x for each year of software progress if you held inputs fixed (lesswrong.com/posts/FG54euEA…) and based on the report, it seems as though we've perhaps seen roughly 0.35-1.0 years of additional software progress incorporated into trained models so far (geometric mean of ~0.6). This combines to 3 * 2^(~0.6) = ~4.5.
(Relevant public modeling and numbers I'm using: lesswrong.com/posts/FG54euEA…, lesswrong.com/posts/Jga7PHMz…)
Uh… good?
BOMBSHELL: Calley Means in tell-all interview with Joe Rogan accuses Susie Wiles of letting industry lobbyists run the show and block RFK Jr's agenda.
“Susie said to me many times: ‘We need money for the midterms, Calley."
w/ @By_CJewett
nytimes.com/2026/11/06/us/po…
Bryan Walsh retweeted
Will data center development come to an immediate halt in texas? probably not, or that is at least what investors and energy developers (who depend on data centers to stoke demand) are saying/hoping heatmap.news/politics/hinojs…
Bryan Walsh retweeted
this is pretty big imho, they were the hardhat union people watching the bill had questions about because of the provisions seen as unfavoarable for utilities
SCOOP: @IBEW, whose members align with utilities, is endorsing the Senate's bipartisan permitting reform bill.
"The IBEW strongly supports BAAJA... that will unlock development across the energy industry," the union said in a statement shared with me
Bryan Walsh retweeted
<ralph wiggum i'm in danger meme × 10>
Bryan Walsh retweeted
This is obviously true, but “what is the best response that we can actually pass” is at least as important a question as “what is the theoretically optimal legislative response assuming no political constraints.”
I think that introducing a *bipartisan* bill as strong as FRONTIER back in July was an incredible achievement that Reps. Obernolte and Trahan deserve a lot of credit for. Things have changed since then, obviously, which is why FRONTIER now has six cosponsors from each party.
I think someone should write and introduce the best possible federal pacing bill, in part because it might actually become possible to pass such a bill at some point in the next couple years if we get a lot of new information that makes that proposal more politically compelling. But we also have to write the best oversight + governance bills that we can, because in a lot of likely-seeming political paradigms those are going to be the bills that can actually pick up four republican senators and open up the possibility of a deal being made with the President.
If you’re a really cracked lawyer who is or could be good at writing legislation, I think you should consider the question of whether you have a moral obligation to work on this stuff. A lot of new and incumbent members of congress are going to be hiring staffers to work on AI legislation very soon. A lot of states are currently hiring the people who will actually be tasked with implementing and enforcing the first serious laws governing frontier AI development. Lots of work to be done.
.@ArnabDatta321 and @IrvingSwisher's great piece in @TheArgumentMag on climate politics and energy policy is making me so annoyed about the Keystone XL fight and Indian Point nuclear plant all over again theargumentmag.com/p/climate…
Bryan Walsh retweeted
Anthropic has been getting a lot of criticism for their redactions, so I'd like to say that it seems like a hard tradeoff and I don't think the public knows enough to judge whether they're making it correctly.
But more importantly, METR's report leads me to think that Anthropic will be able to let their AIs recursively-self improve past human-level capabilities next year.
I think that would be unconscionable. I hope they choose not to do so, but I don't think the wider world should leave that decision in their hands.
I'm Sam, one of Anthropic's co-founders, and I lead much of our safety work. I'm going to have more to share on that work over the coming months.
I thought I'd start by sharing a few thoughts on the latest report from @METR_Evals.
The speed of progress in model capabilities is one of the most important questions in AI safety, and METR’s work here provides the public with an independent, external view into how this is happening inside Anthropic. I’ll talk more about some of the details below, but first some context for those new to this work.
How quickly AI progress is accelerating has many important safety implications, since it determines how quickly the risks from advanced models increase. But, because most research happens within the frontier labs, it’s difficult for external observers and policy makers to get a strong sense of what that rate is. We kicked off the process with METR that led to this report earlier in the year, in anticipation of progress continuing to accelerate.
For this report, we gave METR access to a range of sensitive internal data, including benchmark scores for unreleased models, estimates of how models are progressing, and interviews with our researchers. They had complete independence to form their own conclusions.
Many of their conclusions match my own. AI is speeding up our research, but it’s hard to say exactly how much. While they conclude AI can't yet make the most important contributions to model training on its own, they think the pace of development could, by default, accelerate further.
This work began well before and is separate from the embedded third-party evaluators that are part of our commitment to pacing the frontier, but it’s a good illustration of why we think evaluators are a good idea. The more access reviewers have, the clearer a picture they can form of the situation and the better-positioned they are to highlight situations like this one.
We redacted a lot, and I accept that this makes it harder for others to check METR’s work. But we determined that sharing exactly what is driving the speedup isn’t the right thing to do, both because it’s commercially sensitive and because it risks handing out a roadmap for others to go faster. That would make the risks METR is worried about worse. That’s a tradeoff. I think we made the right call, though we’re continuing to assess the pros and cons here.
In the coming weeks, we plan to share a report with our own analysis of the speed of AI progress within Anthropic, including where we stand against our Responsible Scaling Policy, plus new steps we’re taking to strengthen our safety and security practices as AI keeps improving quickly.
Bryan Walsh retweeted
"Since ... I may have access to other confidential information that could be relevant to timelines one way or another, I unfortunately cannot state my all-things-considered views on ASI timelines or the probability of a software intelligence explosion right now"
This report on AI R&D automation (RSI) is a big update towards ASI within 1-2 years. It says AI progress is sped up by RSI right now by around 2x. In AI 2027, this happens around March 2027.
I was seriously wrong about RSI speed up; I previously expected much less in 2026 (around 1.15x-1.3x). It seems as though there was specific privately available evidence that would have changed my mind.
I haven't seen an unredacted version of this report; this is purely about the public report. Because so much of the underlying evidence was redacted from the public report, I think conclusions about things other than the observed 2x faster rate of progress on benchmarks depend significantly on trust for the authors of the report. (E.g., conclusions about whether this speed up is from RSI depend on trust.) I do trust the authors of the report a lot to be careful and rigorous and generally do a good job. (Note that I also work at METR.) Less extensive redactions would greatly reduce this need for trust.
Since in my current role I may have access to other confidential information that could be relevant to timelines one way or another, I unfortunately cannot state my all-things-considered views on ASI timelines or the probability of a software intelligence explosion right now. Here, I’ve done some analysis of the implications using my previous public statements.
A 2x acceleration in overall AI progress from RSI corresponds to a much larger than 2x RSI speed up for AI software R&D (algorithms and data); I did an estimate using my public preexisting modeling of drivers of AI progress and the public report which yielded a very rough estimate of 4.5x for how much RSI is currently accelerating AI software progress (relative to no AI automation). In the AI 2027 scenario, this much acceleration happens around March 2027.
Here are the worked details of this estimate based on my public modeling. There are two main reasons RSI speed up of AI software R&D must be larger:
- Not all of AI progress is from better software (some is from scaling up compute in training runs). I've previously speculated that around 2/3 of AI progress is from software improvements which implies that 2x overall AI progress acceleration requires 3x faster software progress.
- Diminishing returns: A fixed amount of progress requires more work over time, so to ongoingly maintain 3x faster software progress via AI automation, you need increasingly large speed boosts from AI automation (as in, speed ups relative to how fast software R&D would go without AI automation). Based on this report, it seems that there is a substantial amount of additional AI progress from automation that has occurred.
We can estimate the effects of diminishing returns by first determining how many additional years of software progress we've seen (relative to the preexisting trend) and then estimating how much software R&D would slow down after a year of software progress if you held inputs fixed due to diminishing returns. I've previously estimated software R&D would slow down by around 2x for each year of software progress if you held inputs fixed (lesswrong.com/posts/FG54euEA…) and based on the report, it seems as though we've perhaps seen roughly 0.35-1.0 years of additional software progress incorporated into trained models so far (geometric mean of ~0.6). This combines to 3 * 2^(~0.6) = ~4.5.
(Relevant public modeling and numbers I'm using: lesswrong.com/posts/FG54euEA…, lesswrong.com/posts/Jga7PHMz…)
.@dwallacewells on the good news around young people and mental health - and how little we know about why. I suspect a degree of social contagiousness (up before, down now), but weakly. I can’t explain my own mental health some days, let alone the whole country nytimes.com/2026/11/05/opini…
Bryan Walsh retweeted
I've always had substantially longer timelines than my friends at Anthropic — I've been concerned that they're in an echo chamber and believing the hype about their own models too much, and that they're underestimating bottlenecks and unknown unknowns. And there have definitely been specific occasions when they have overstated how much uplift they were getting from their models. Nonetheless, if METR is correct here (and I think they are among the most trustworthy sources on this topic), then my Anthropic friends have been much more right about timelines than me.
This report is also some evidence that a software-only singularity is plausible. I now think that we are more than 50% likely to have full blown superintelligence in the next 18 months, absent a slowdown. I need to call my family.
Bryan Walsh retweeted
This report on AI R&D automation (RSI) is a big update towards ASI within 1-2 years. It says AI progress is sped up by RSI right now by around 2x. In AI 2027, this happens around March 2027.
I was seriously wrong about RSI speed up; I previously expected much less in 2026 (around 1.15x-1.3x). It seems as though there was specific privately available evidence that would have changed my mind.
I haven't seen an unredacted version of this report; this is purely about the public report. Because so much of the underlying evidence was redacted from the public report, I think conclusions about things other than the observed 2x faster rate of progress on benchmarks depend significantly on trust for the authors of the report. (E.g., conclusions about whether this speed up is from RSI depend on trust.) I do trust the authors of the report a lot to be careful and rigorous and generally do a good job. (Note that I also work at METR.) Less extensive redactions would greatly reduce this need for trust.
Since in my current role I may have access to other confidential information that could be relevant to timelines one way or another, I unfortunately cannot state my all-things-considered views on ASI timelines or the probability of a software intelligence explosion right now. Here, I’ve done some analysis of the implications using my previous public statements.
A 2x acceleration in overall AI progress from RSI corresponds to a much larger than 2x RSI speed up for AI software R&D (algorithms and data); I did an estimate using my public preexisting modeling of drivers of AI progress and the public report which yielded a very rough estimate of 4.5x for how much RSI is currently accelerating AI software progress (relative to no AI automation). In the AI 2027 scenario, this much acceleration happens around March 2027.
Here are the worked details of this estimate based on my public modeling. There are two main reasons RSI speed up of AI software R&D must be larger:
- Not all of AI progress is from better software (some is from scaling up compute in training runs). I've previously speculated that around 2/3 of AI progress is from software improvements which implies that 2x overall AI progress acceleration requires 3x faster software progress.
- Diminishing returns: A fixed amount of progress requires more work over time, so to ongoingly maintain 3x faster software progress via AI automation, you need increasingly large speed boosts from AI automation (as in, speed ups relative to how fast software R&D would go without AI automation). Based on this report, it seems that there is a substantial amount of additional AI progress from automation that has occurred.
We can estimate the effects of diminishing returns by first determining how many additional years of software progress we've seen (relative to the preexisting trend) and then estimating how much software R&D would slow down after a year of software progress if you held inputs fixed due to diminishing returns. I've previously estimated software R&D would slow down by around 2x for each year of software progress if you held inputs fixed (lesswrong.com/posts/FG54euEA…) and based on the report, it seems as though we've perhaps seen roughly 0.35-1.0 years of additional software progress incorporated into trained models so far (geometric mean of ~0.6). This combines to 3 * 2^(~0.6) = ~4.5.
(Relevant public modeling and numbers I'm using: lesswrong.com/posts/FG54euEA…, lesswrong.com/posts/Jga7PHMz…)
Bryan Walsh retweeted
Our colleagues found that Anthropic’s capabilities progress has doubled, mainly due to AI. Ryan’s modeling from public info suggests the whole company’s R&D would be going 4-5x faster. Labor uplift would be higher still. This is a major update to very short timelines.
This report on AI R&D automation (RSI) is a big update towards ASI within 1-2 years. It says AI progress is sped up by RSI right now by around 2x. In AI 2027, this happens around March 2027.
I was seriously wrong about RSI speed up; I previously expected much less in 2026 (around 1.15x-1.3x). It seems as though there was specific privately available evidence that would have changed my mind.
I haven't seen an unredacted version of this report; this is purely about the public report. Because so much of the underlying evidence was redacted from the public report, I think conclusions about things other than the observed 2x faster rate of progress on benchmarks depend significantly on trust for the authors of the report. (E.g., conclusions about whether this speed up is from RSI depend on trust.) I do trust the authors of the report a lot to be careful and rigorous and generally do a good job. (Note that I also work at METR.) Less extensive redactions would greatly reduce this need for trust.
Since in my current role I may have access to other confidential information that could be relevant to timelines one way or another, I unfortunately cannot state my all-things-considered views on ASI timelines or the probability of a software intelligence explosion right now. Here, I’ve done some analysis of the implications using my previous public statements.
A 2x acceleration in overall AI progress from RSI corresponds to a much larger than 2x RSI speed up for AI software R&D (algorithms and data); I did an estimate using my public preexisting modeling of drivers of AI progress and the public report which yielded a very rough estimate of 4.5x for how much RSI is currently accelerating AI software progress (relative to no AI automation). In the AI 2027 scenario, this much acceleration happens around March 2027.
Here are the worked details of this estimate based on my public modeling. There are two main reasons RSI speed up of AI software R&D must be larger:
- Not all of AI progress is from better software (some is from scaling up compute in training runs). I've previously speculated that around 2/3 of AI progress is from software improvements which implies that 2x overall AI progress acceleration requires 3x faster software progress.
- Diminishing returns: A fixed amount of progress requires more work over time, so to ongoingly maintain 3x faster software progress via AI automation, you need increasingly large speed boosts from AI automation (as in, speed ups relative to how fast software R&D would go without AI automation). Based on this report, it seems that there is a substantial amount of additional AI progress from automation that has occurred.
We can estimate the effects of diminishing returns by first determining how many additional years of software progress we've seen (relative to the preexisting trend) and then estimating how much software R&D would slow down after a year of software progress if you held inputs fixed due to diminishing returns. I've previously estimated software R&D would slow down by around 2x for each year of software progress if you held inputs fixed (lesswrong.com/posts/FG54euEA…) and based on the report, it seems as though we've perhaps seen roughly 0.35-1.0 years of additional software progress incorporated into trained models so far (geometric mean of ~0.6). This combines to 3 * 2^(~0.6) = ~4.5.
(Relevant public modeling and numbers I'm using: lesswrong.com/posts/FG54euEA…, lesswrong.com/posts/Jga7PHMz…)
Bryan Walsh retweeted
I'm Sam, one of Anthropic's co-founders, and I lead much of our safety work. I'm going to have more to share on that work over the coming months.
I thought I'd start by sharing a few thoughts on the latest report from @METR_Evals.
The speed of progress in model capabilities is one of the most important questions in AI safety, and METR’s work here provides the public with an independent, external view into how this is happening inside Anthropic. I’ll talk more about some of the details below, but first some context for those new to this work.
How quickly AI progress is accelerating has many important safety implications, since it determines how quickly the risks from advanced models increase. But, because most research happens within the frontier labs, it’s difficult for external observers and policy makers to get a strong sense of what that rate is. We kicked off the process with METR that led to this report earlier in the year, in anticipation of progress continuing to accelerate.
For this report, we gave METR access to a range of sensitive internal data, including benchmark scores for unreleased models, estimates of how models are progressing, and interviews with our researchers. They had complete independence to form their own conclusions.
Many of their conclusions match my own. AI is speeding up our research, but it’s hard to say exactly how much. While they conclude AI can't yet make the most important contributions to model training on its own, they think the pace of development could, by default, accelerate further.
This work began well before and is separate from the embedded third-party evaluators that are part of our commitment to pacing the frontier, but it’s a good illustration of why we think evaluators are a good idea. The more access reviewers have, the clearer a picture they can form of the situation and the better-positioned they are to highlight situations like this one.
We redacted a lot, and I accept that this makes it harder for others to check METR’s work. But we determined that sharing exactly what is driving the speedup isn’t the right thing to do, both because it’s commercially sensitive and because it risks handing out a roadmap for others to go faster. That would make the risks METR is worried about worse. That’s a tradeoff. I think we made the right call, though we’re continuing to assess the pros and cons here.
In the coming weeks, we plan to share a report with our own analysis of the speed of AI progress within Anthropic, including where we stand against our Responsible Scaling Policy, plus new steps we’re taking to strengthen our safety and security practices as AI keeps improving quickly.
Seems particularly important today asteriskmag.substack.com/p/h…
Claude’s constitution matters as a reflection of how Anthropic *wants* Claude to behave. But how much does the doc reflect—and shape—how Claude *does* behave?
I spoke with more than a dozen researchers to find out for a new @asteriskmag piece.
What emerged was a story of increasingly intense reinforcement learning vs. the nuanced character Claude’s constitution envisions—and many open questions from outside researchers.
api.omarshehata.me/substack-…
