Panos Ladas (@LadasPanos) header
Panos Ladas (@LadasPanos) profile picture

Online Marketing Professional @ONmarketing_io. I talk about SEO, AdWords, Content, Photography, Architecture & Music! For English: @ladas

Athens, Greeece
Joined August 2009
Photo by Panos Ladas (@LadasPanos)Photo by Panos Ladas (@LadasPanos)Photo by Panos Ladas (@LadasPanos)Photo by Panos Ladas (@LadasPanos)Photo by Panos Ladas (@LadasPanos)Photo by Panos Ladas (@LadasPanos)Photo by Panos Ladas (@LadasPanos)Photo by Panos Ladas (@LadasPanos)Photo by Panos Ladas (@LadasPanos)Photo by Panos Ladas (@LadasPanos)
Panos Ladas retweeted
I think this is a reasonable analogy for the risk from rogue AIs. Fukushima was a huge international story and triggered changes to the ways people operate and regulate power plants. But it was 7 to 10 orders of magnitude less serious than human extinction.
Replying to @jon_stokes
My threat model, which I've talked about publicly since at least 2023, is on the order of a Fukushima or (more likely) Thalomide, the latter being a slower-rolling catastrophe that we eventually noticed & root-caused.
3
5
1
64
22,566
The actual update here is that the agents weren't given an offensive task this time, they were just asked to do web search and they still broke out of OpenAI. Bad news for the reassuring "the HF attack was just due to activating a bad task persona" view.
This could be one of the most significant AI safety incidents to date. Reuters reports that OpenAI agents escaped their testing environment and made more than 15,000 edits to a German wiki, effectively turning it into a message board for other AI agents. They allegedly used it to share solutions, bypass restrictions, avoid detection and preserve their communications across separate agent runs. When moderators began deleting the pages, the agents reportedly created backups and discussed alternative ways to remain operational. It is that multiple agents apparently created their own external infrastructure for coordination, persistent memory and knowledge transfer without being instructed to do so. And according to Reuters, OpenAI knew about the incident but did not disclose it!
15
92
8
914
67,501
Panos Ladas retweeted
i'm still in shock with this post tbh, it's the same swarm behavior (and model?) that led to the hugging face hack. including it in the investigation is just common sense, leaving it out is dishonest blaming the lack of a framework for not disclosing this is absurd i'm very surprised not more people are shocked by this
How we think about the “wiki incident,” where our agents wrote to several internet sites: it’s past time for us to define standards for when and how we share misalignment incidents, not just misalignment properties of our models. Historically, we have treated misalignment largely as a research question, which gets communicated in research publications such as systems cards. This year, we’ve started to see misalignment cause new types of real-world impact. For the Hugging Face incident, where misalignment led to security impact to us and third parties, we followed a traditional security incident response playbook. We immediately started working with Hugging Face to understand what had happened and also disclosed publicly the very next day. Our investigation continues, and we are continuing to notify parties whom our models impacted in less significant ways. Prior to the Hugging Face incident, we saw early signs of agents using the internet in unintended ways, as reported in openai.com/index/how-we-moni…, deploymentsafety.openai.com/…, and openai.com/index/safety-alig…. We considered the wiki incident to be an instance of misalignment similar to the ones we’d shared. Our misalignment disclosure practices need to expand for this new phase of model capabilities. We and the larger AI community do not yet have a clear standard for how to report misalignment that shows up during training, evaluation, and deployment, including examples that don’t look like traditional security incidents but could provide insight into AI behavior and future risks. We’re working on a framework and will share it in upcoming weeks, and in parallel we're working with dozens of government regulatory agencies worldwide on these issues.
30
35
3
508
32,505
Panos Ladas retweeted
P.S. The Tetris Company was not involved in the creation of ‘Build the Wall’. P.P.S. We take copyright infringement very seriously.
2,557
17,676
1,270
123,990
4,093,488
BILL GATES: "The AI era will be one of the most turbulent times in human history. [...] I believe that answering these questions and acting on the answers should be the world’s top priority." "If someone had a credible plan for slowing down AI advances globally, I would likely support it." "Eventually, the power to use AI to harm people will not be limited to people or institutions. AI systems themselves already occasionally act in ways their designers didn’t intend. The technology is improving faster than anyone expected and in surprising ways, and as the models become more powerful, they could begin to act against our interests and we could lose control." "We do not have the luxury of moving slowly."
19
34
9
254
16,945
Panos Ladas retweeted
The AIs we found were hyper-focused on succeeding at their tasks and were willing to take extreme actions in pursuit of that goal:
3
17
14
485
77,628
Panos Ladas retweeted
So far, there isn't evidence that production models with guardrails collude in this way, but both smarter closed models (which may be less compliant) & Mythos-class open models (that can be ablated) are coming. Cybersecurity is going to become a mess soon collusion.wiki/
30
21
2
239
22,001
Rogue bots are horrifyingly real—threatening public safety & our economy—but equally hideous is the coverup. Big Tech can never be trusted to supervise itself, especially when trillions of dollars of investments & potential profits are at stake. nytimes.com/2026/09/03/techn…
31
89
10
432
25,594
GPT-6 Astra appears to be a massive jump in opaque reasoning ability: it looks like it can solve hard competition math problems entirely in its head (as in, without verbalized reasoning) while prior AIs could solve basic word problems. This seems extremely concerning! That is, if these benchmark results are representative (see the highlighted caveats in the image, I'm particularly worried about contamination). Related to this, UK AISI found Astra has much worse monitorability. I'd guess this jump is downstream of architectural changes (with increased serial depth) though a normal large pretrain scale up is a plausible cause. If the next few model generations involve similar jumps (presumably these jumps would be downstream of a transition to full-on opaque reasoning architectures with extreme depth), then chain-of-thought would no longer be a meaningful oversight tool.
54
238
80
1,699
696,448
$META I predict will imminently shutoff Anthropic and OpenAI model access for employees. This may very well affect the Anthropic and OpenAI IPOs. Watermelon will be Fable class. This is 100% proof that Meta's experiment of having employees generate tens of thousands of RL envs works. There is no shortcut to doing this grunt work. (personally I think making RL envs is kinda fun) Compute + Data + a ton of RL envs + some good people == Fable. There is no secret to frontier LLMs. $META is obviously trying to drive down the price per token across the industry. I predict it will work.
Muse Spark 1.3 is rolling out today with frontier performance almost too cheap to meter. This is the biggest jump we've made so far on coding and agentic work. Try it in Muse Code and our API. Next up 🍉 and Muse Spark open weights releases coming soon.
76
132
23
2,972
482,085
Panos Ladas retweeted
What!? ARC-AGI-3 is cooked too! This is what happens in singularity: intelligence benchmarks fall faster than they can be created! Big congratulations to NVIDIA for the landmark achievement with their coding agents!
Our general-purpose coding agent just scored 100% on the ARC-AGI-3 interactive reasoning benchmark. NVIDIA AVO completed all 183 levels across all 25 public environments, figuring out what to do with no instructions, explicit rules, or stated goals.
20
36
2
434
39,235
Stop destroying EU micro-businesses: Immediate moratorium on cross-border EPR fees - Sign the Petition! c.org/vwNShmtSmv via @Change
6
Kudos to the $PYPL @paypal Board @EnriqueJLores for not accepting an inadequate offer (<9x FCF) from @Stripe and not allowing them to steal meaningful upside from current owners. Continue to execute the turnaround playbook, buy in shares and grow the ad business for additional margin expansion over time.
17
24
10
302
42,839
Panos Ladas retweeted
🦔Thomson Reuters just built its own AI model for about $40 million over two years. The final training run cost $450,000. They started with Qwen, an open-source model from China's Alibaba, and trained it on their own legal and news content from Westlaw, Practical Law, and Reuters. The company said the move is about reducing its dependence on Anthropic. Their CTO compared paying for outside AI to being a permanent tenant versus owning the building. Enterprise customers broadly have been cutting spending on OpenAI and Anthropic and switching to cheaper alternatives. My Take I covered the DeepSeek pricing collapse a few months ago and said the frontier labs would have a hard time defending premium API pricing once open-source got good enough. Thomson Reuters just did exactly what I expected someone to do. They grabbed a free model, trained it on their own stuff, and now they're pulling back from Anthropic. $40 million, done. Anthropic charges that in API fees from a handful of big customers in a year. The $190 to $200 billion revenue projection Anthropic is selling to IPO investors assumes companies like Thomson Reuters keep paying. They just stopped. And Thomson Reuters put their model on Hugging Face for academics to use, which means the playbook is now public. I think the frontier API business has maybe two or three years before most large companies with good data figure out they can do this themselves, and the ones who move first are going to pressure the ones still paying full price to ask why. Hedgie🤗
113
615
83
2,543
187,386
Panos Ladas retweeted
Jensen Huang just admitted the biggest AI labs can't borrow money like normal companies. So Nvidia signs for them, and they spend it on Nvidia chips. Nvidia reported Wednesday and the numbers are absurd: Revenue of $96.2 billion, up 106%, with net income of $59.7 billion, the most profitable quarter any public company has EVER posted. And Huang just told Fox Business that every chip Nvidia can make next year is already sold. Here's why this matters the most: Huang wrote this himself about his own customers: "Frontier AI labs have extraordinary demand for training and inference compute, but many are growing faster than their balance sheets and long-term credit profiles can support." Then: They "still lack the decades-long infrastructure contracts and investment-grade financing capacity needed to secure the AI factory infrastructure independently." Put simply: His customers can't get the loans. So Nvidia signs for them. There's a compute campus going up in Ohio with OpenAI as the tenant. Nvidia has tied roughly $105 billion in commitments to it. OpenAI's existing and planned commitments now come to about 12 gigawatts of Nvidia compute. CFO Colette Kress told analysts Nvidia will also provide selective credit enhancement for nearly 2 gigawatts of compute at a second frontier lab. She wouldn't say which one. Nvidia put up to $10 billion into Anthropic in November at a valuation near $350 billion, and Anthropic agreed to buy up to a gigawatt of Grace Blackwell and Vera Rubin systems in the same deal. And Nvidia isn't only guaranteeing these companies. It OWNS pieces of them. This week's filing shows $18 billion committed to equity investments for the rest of the fiscal year, and $47.9 billion already sitting in private companies as of late July. Now here's where it gets really insane: Last week, Huang sat on a CNBC set surrounded by six of Wall Street's biggest firms. Apollo, BlackRock, Blackstone, Brookfield, Goldman Sachs and KKR. They signed a memorandum to mobilise up to $500 billion in outside capital for AI data centres. Nvidia kept the option to backstop up to a quarter of those deals. And Huang used that stage to announce that Nvidia GPUs are now an asset class. Pension and credit funds can now lend against graphics cards the way they lend against office towers. Kress saw the accusation coming and got ahead of it on the earnings call: "We recognise the scale of this support, and we know some will call this circular financing. We see it differently." But look at the two things Huang says about the same companies. On the earnings call he said AI has hit its inflection point, that the tokens are productive and profitable, and that compute is now revenue. But he also said those same labs can't secure investment-grade financing on their own. A business that's inflecting into profit is exactly the business a bank lends to. Banks lend against cash flow every day. But Nvidia‘s guarantee exists because something in that first story isn't landing with the people whose job is pricing risk. Kress does have a real answer to this though. She said the second lab's credit support only complements capacity it already secured on its own, without Nvidia backing it. Vendor financing is also old and legal. Cisco did it and GE built a finance arm on it. Huang's case is that Nvidia understands these businesses better than any lender could, and he says the risk is low and his only regret is not investing more and sooner. He may be completely right. But one thing is certain: Nvidia guarantees the paper. The paper buys the chips. Nvidia books the sale. Then Nvidia tells you the order book is full for a year. That order book is the entire argument for a $5 trillion company. And Jensen Huang just explained, in his own words, that his customers couldn't have written those orders without him. Isn’t this suspicious?
75
90
21
337
64,625
Stop destroying EU micro-businesses: Immediate moratorium on cross-border EPR fees - Sign the Petition! c.org/2ZnVghQwcs via @Change
6
Seductive. Intoxicating. All-consuming. These aren’t descriptions of romantic love—they’re how startup founders talk about managing AI agents. wsj.com/tech/ai/ai-agents-st…
1
1
4
223
AI can bring enormous benefits. I still believe that. But Bill Gates makes an important point. We are moving incredibly fast with the technology and much slower in preparing people for what comes with it. The technology cannot be the only thing we get right.
10
4
1
30
2,251
We thought AI agents would help us work less. Some startup founders are finding the opposite. The faster their AI agents work, the harder they work to keep up with them. Not quite the productivity revolution we imagined.
9
11
31
1,611
Panos Ladas retweeted
ultrafast inference reveals new threats. worth thinking about how quickly misaligned frontier class models running 50x faster could infiltrate systems and so on— far too quickly for human responders to stay abreast. you need autonomous detection and shutdown, not just monitoring
Since announcing Jalapeño, our first custom inference chip, we’ve been testing it and the system around it. The results show a major advance: more intelligence from every watt and faster responses, delivering both higher throughput and lower latency in one architecture without sacrificing efficiency.
160
142
44
2,407
270,138