High Signal Podcasts Evidence ledger
Method
Browse
← Back to evidence

Evidence receipt / commitment

Published · transcript-backed

Satya Nadella: commitment

19 Feb 2025 Dwarkesh Podcast Satya Nadella — Microsoft’s AGI plan & quantum breakthrough

“Therefore, I think we will have to build enough software engineering around the deployment side of these, and then inside the model itself, what's the alignment?”

— Satya Nadella

Source trail

Everything needed to verify it.

Speaker
Satya Nadella
Attribution
Verified speaker
Claim type
commitment
Recorded
19 Feb 2025
Publisher
Dwarkesh Podcast

Transcript context

…On the alignment side, two years ago, you guys released Sydney Bing. Just to be clear, I think given the level of capabilities at the time, it was a charming, endearing, kind of funny example of misalignment. But that was because, at the time, it was like chatbots. They can go think for 30 seconds and give you some funny or inappropriate response. But if you think about that kind of system--that, I think to a New York Times reporter, tried to get him to leave his wife or something--if you think about that going forward, and you have these agents that are for hours, weeks, months going forward, just like autonomous swarms of AGIs, who could be in similar ways misaligned and screwing stuff up, maybe coordinating with each other, what's your plan going forward so that when you get the big one, you get it right? That is correct. That's one of the reasons why when we usually allocate compute, let's allocate compute for what is that alignment challenge? And then more importantly, what is the runtime environment in which you are really going to be able to monitor these things? The observability around it? We do deal with a lot of these things today in the classical side of things as well, like cyber. We don't just write software and then just let it go. You have software and then you monitor it. You monitor it for cyber attacks, you monitor it for fault injections, and what have you. Therefore, I think we will have to build enough software engineering around the deployment side of these, and then inside the model itself, what's the alignment? These are all, some of them are real science problems. Some of them are real engineering problems, and then we will have to tackle it. That also means taking our own liability in all of this. So that's why I'm more interested in deploying these things in where you can actually govern what the scope of these things is, and the scale of these things is. You just can't unleash something out there in the world that creates harm, because the social permission for that is not going to be there. When you get the agents that can really just do weeks worth of tasks for you, what is the minimum assurance you want before you can let it run a random Fortune 500?…

Stored transcript either side of the excerpt. The highlighted words are the published quote; the surrounding text is unedited source, never generated.

Search evidence