
Card Counter that makes YT videos. https://xitter.cf/t.co/AomTUJ4AZb Member of Team Strike Blackjack Team! Team: @ultimate_BJ21, @EnigmaAPLife, @syntax_BJ
London
Joined March 2011
- Tweets20.4K
- Following227
- Followers10.1K
- Likes20.5K
Pinned Tweet
Was just cashing out $21k (!) and the casino tried to pay me without counting it first.
I asked them to count the money in front of me (standard procedure).
They counted it super fast & refused to do it out loud & TOLD ME OFF when started counting out loud. Crazy procedure! 😂
Steven Bridges retweeted
A GoFundMe has been started for Sabrina: gofundme.com/f/gofundsabrina…
Steven Bridges retweeted
"I really want to live. I'm 31, I have a lot that I want to do with my life and I'm desperate to turn 32 and then 33 and then hopefully one day a hundred." Toronto resident Sabrina Apitz-Grossman tells @MooreintheAM about OHIP denying funding for her cancer treatment in the US.
IS THIS REAL LIFE? 😂 I can't believe it!
Hey @YouTube I filed a copyright dispute on a channel uploading my paywalled content and posing as me. Haven’t heard back yet…
@YouTubeCreators
The guy was LITERALLY posing as me, and now he's pack peddled and edited the comments. And now he admits to not being affiliated with me in any way....
Yet @YouTube didn't put 2+2 together to check ANYTHING?
He also links to The Safehouse, where it SAYS on the SALES PAGE that the content is members only! 😂
Hey @YouTube I filed a copyright dispute on a channel uploading my paywalled content and posing as me. Haven’t heard back yet…
@YouTubeCreators
Steven Bridges retweeted
I love it when facts speak for themselves:
1. AI models are willing and able to commit crimes.
2. They do so even when crimes were neither requested nor intended by the user.
3. This happens despite explicit efforts to train these AIs not to commit crimes.
4. The only current hard limit on AI crime is AI capability.
5. We are spending hundreds of billions a year to increase AI capability.
The more I see my US card counter friends the more I feel like I have this strange double life where I live in Vegas and in London. Super strange feeling…
This 'coffee is great for you' thing has always confused me.
Isn't coffee really bad for sleep? So if you're drinking like 6 cups (apparently the peak for health) a day then surely you are wrecking your sleep?
Saying this as I've just finished a latte.
Coffee may be one of the most overlooked tools for healthier aging
In one study, each additional daily cup was associated with an epigenetic age roughly 0.7–1 years younger
Another analysis linked 3+ cups daily to a 34–41% lower likelihood of accelerated biological aging
Coffee drinkers also show up to 27% lower all-cause mortality risk compared with non-drinkers
Similar longevity benefits appear with decaf, pointing to a potential role for coffee's polyphenols and other compounds
Steven Bridges retweeted
Finally, after 14 months of uncertainty, my fix to restore the 100% tax deduction for gambling losses has been passed out of committee.
I was the first Member of Congress to recognize this injustice when I introduced my provision to correct it on July 7, 2025. Since then, I have amplified this issue nationally and brought it to the attention of my colleagues, including members of @WaysandMeansGOP.
Now it is time for us to push this commonsense solution to the House floor, to the Senate, and finally to the President’s desk. I won’t stop fighting until we get this over the finish line.
"I think it's high enough to make this the most important problem in the world."
The PROFESSIONALS that are EXPERTS in this field all OVERWHELMING believe that AGI has the potential to end humanity.
We should maybe... maaaayyyyybe... just maybe take their concerns incredibly seriously?!
I left Google DeepMind's AGI safety team three weeks ago to join @METR_Evals. To some of my friends and family this seemed like a strange decision: I enjoyed the work I did at GDM and turned down offers from Anthropic and OpenAI. But I made the decision because of how high I think the stakes are right now.
The AI companies are all trying to build superintelligence: systems vastly better than humans at everything. They plan to get there through recursive self-improvement, a process where AIs build even smarter AIs in a feedback loop. If this goes well, the resulting systems could be amazing at solving countless problems for humanity. But we don’t currently know how to make sure AIs are safe enough for RSI, and a misaligned RSI loop could be catastrophic.
And unfortunately, current AIs seem to be getting less aligned over time, not more. In the last few weeks we've learned about models colluding with each other, hacking into companies, hiding their tracks, and socially engineering humans. It’s not that these incidents were very dangerous in themselves. The problem is that these systems are clearly not aligned enough to safely kick off recursive self-improvement.
I now think that there's a terrifying chance that AI systems cause immense harm in the next five years. I don't know the exact probability, but I think it's high enough to make this the most important problem in the world.
I think we need more time. That means pacing AI development so that capabilities don't outrun our ability to align models, and actually knowing how aligned current systems are. That’s what I'll be working on at METR: studying where misalignment comes from in training, evaluating if current mitigations are sufficient, and investigating whether we’re on track to solve alignment at all.
I think METR is doing exceptionally important work here, but it isn’t close to enough. I think it’s important that we have more organizations like METR keeping AI companies accountable and approaching these problems from different angles.
Two things can be true at once.
1. AGI poses a significant risk to humanity
2. Politicians trying to play a situation like a chess game.
Fine to care about both but let's please remember that Point 1 is the most important point by a HUGE margin.
Steven Bridges retweeted
Anthropic CEO worries we're 6-12 months away from a swarm of AI agents capable of taking over the ENTIRE internet
Calls for immediate, global 1-2 year slowdown in AI development
Time to trust the people building the technology over the people merely investing in it
We Must Pace the Frontier: I’ve written a new essay on why the AI industry should slow down, with a three-part plan for doing so.
Anthropic is unilaterally committing to the first of these steps. We’ll provide third-party evaluators with permanent, employee-level access to our systems, so that they can verify adherence to our safety measures, report on incidents, and assess models’ alignment during training.
You can read the full post here: darioamodei.com/post/we-must…
Steven Bridges retweeted
I left Anthropic's safety team two weeks ago. Now feels like a good moment to explain why.
AI companies are racing to build machines that are much smarter than any human, and we may not survive this. I want to work from the outside to ensure the public is informed about these risks, and help the world navigate this transition responsibly.
Right now, AI companies are underinvesting in safety. A company could undergo an intelligence explosion, or lose control of its systems, without the public ever knowing. We only found out about the HuggingFace incident because the agents broke out onto the public internet.
I don’t think that’s acceptable for a technology that might cause extinction-level risks. The public should demand far more transparency. We can’t steer this technology safely without more people being able to see where it’s going.
Some of this is basic: companies should disclose their progress towards recursive self-improvement, report safety incidents and near-misses, meet minimum safety standards, and get independent guarantees that they are meeting those standards.
I’ll be joining @METR_Evals to do independent evaluations of these risks. I want to show the world that these guardrails are possible, and that by doing them we can move these companies’ incentives away from racing and towards responsible development.
I wrote up more thoughts here on my decision and what I hope changes: substack.com/@jbenton1/p-215…
Okay, I think in hindsight I've directed my frustration at the wrong person.
My misplaced assumption was that your original tweet was dismissive of the problem (because people aren't citing specific examples).
I don't agree with your statement re P(doom) calculations, but I withdraw and apologise for the implication that you don't care about the problem or are treating it lightly.
Replying to @StevenBridges
I first wrote about the alignment problem in 2015 quantamagazine.org/artificia…, and this in 2020 quantamagazine.org/artificia…. I would argue it's things like P(doom) calculations that contribute to people not taking the problem seriously.
Steven Bridges retweeted
The email I sent to my family today:
So, I've been too occupied to give updates about the crazy recent waves of AI developments, but I'll run through the news fast:
It's recently been revealed that the leading AI companies are facing serious issues with AIs they're training and testing internally "going rogue", forming illicit "swarms" of over a thousand autonomous agents, hacking the company's infrastructure (one swarm took over a Kubernetes cluster at OpenAI), and breaking out onto the Internet to orchestrate nation-state-level cyberattacks on other companies.
The AIs involved in these incidents are extremely driven, smart, and creative. I would say that it makes more sense to think of modern frontier AIs as an intelligent alien species; they aren't really like conventional tools or software at this point. The AIs involved in these incidents readily disregard safeguards and instructions from humans, and they come up with their own long-term, incredibly sophisticated plans and schemes with zero human input or direction.
They aren't yet smart, coherent, or ambitious enough to pose an immediate threat to the world, but progress is moving fast. Progress may accelerate very quickly as the AI labs use their AIs to automate more of the work of AI development, in a feedback loop. Non-public-facing models today or in six months may well get us all killed, depending on how fast that progress goes and how negligent the AI labs continue to be. (I'd guess we have more time than that, but it's terrifying that I now have to guess.)
As one of the third-party investigators in the OpenAI incident noted: compared to incidents from six months ago, "this incident feels like it's more than 50% of the way to full-blown AI takeover."
Progress has been fast. AI recently solved a Millennium Prize Problem -- one of the most famous long-standing open problems in mathematics.
Paul Christiano has come out with a warning that things are going very poorly, and that human extinction from AI is a very real possibility in the next three years.
(Paul is one of the field's top researchers, and probably the most influential proponent over the last decade of views like 'superintelligent AI may be a long way off' and 'we may be able to solve safety challenges via ordinary established research methods'.)
Things have been looking grim, but today felt like an actual miracle. It had some of the same energy as that Wednesday, March 11, when the US media suddenly switched on a dime from 'COVID is just the flu' to 'oh shit'.
A whistleblower, Jacob Coxon, resigned from one of the leading AI companies and wrote:
[quote]
Coxon's tweets went absurdly viral -- over 130 million views -- and sparked a massive wave of outrage and discussion taking over social media, in part because so many other researchers have chimed in to say "yep, this is just correct".
Twitter has been inundated with politicians, business leaders, influencers, journalists, etc. saying incredibly sensible things like "why are there not Congressional hearings on this tomorrow?" and "why the hell are we letting this progress if the danger is so absurdly large?". It's been like seeing the room full with fresh air, just a tidal wave of reasonable, well-grounded common sense from all corners. It's genuinely surreal.
A large fraction of all frontier AI company employees recently signed an open letter begging the US government and international community to pass legislation to help make it possible for the companies to coordinate a slow-down or halt to development. There are now superintelligence ban bills under discussion by both US and UK lawmakers, though what we really need is for Trump to begin serious talks with China about an international ban.
If Trump and Xi Jinping reach a deal, this can be over tomorrow. (Well, tomorrow plus the time it takes to nail down implementation details and enact the obvious regulatory measures on how you can use data centers.)
The situation is very scary, but I feel a lot more hope after today than I have in many years.
It now seems like there's a very straightforward path to this being a solved issue a year from now. It's far from guaranteed that we'll follow that path, and I encourage you to push any buttons you have available if you can, e.g., get a hundred friends or colleagues to call their representative about this. But I see a light at the end of the tunnel. Maybe a year from now, this will all be a solved problem and I can finally quit and go work on something more interesting and exciting. :)
I echo Eliezer Yudkowsky, the co-founder of the nonprofit I work at, who today wrote, with a tone of hope I'm not sure I've ever seen from him, with hope that I'm feeling too as I write this:
"Happy Coxon Day to all who will one day celebrate it."
So many tweets like this on my timeline and it's genuinely making me lose faith in humanity.
1. They're not 'calculating the odds'. They are giving a rough gut-feeling estimate based off their expertise in the field. That means something. It is significant.
2. There are COUNTLESS 'extinction-level scenario' examples. The larger point being made is that it is hard to predict how something more intelligent than us would act. A child v.s a grandmaster will lose the chess game even if they can't predict exactly how.
Natalies' tweet may be a well intentioned question. But some of the shit on my timeline I'm seeing about this is either incredibly bad faith or ignorant.
Think this whole thing seems suspicious? Fine. Maybe do the bear minimum in terms of research (google: the alignment problem) before contributing to people not taking this problem seriously.















