High Signal Podcasts Evidence ledger
Method
Browse
← Back to evidence

Evidence receipt / belief

Published · transcript-backed

Speaker unverified: belief

13 Jun 2026 The Cognitive Revolution AI in the AM — Week 2 Highlights (June 2026)

“I think we've seen over the last couple of days what you have when we've just seen the start of power concentration and we've sort of seen some of its more unwelcome effects.”

— Speaker unverified

Source trail

Everything needed to verify it.

Speaker
Speaker unverified
Attribution
Not verified from this transcript
Claim type
belief
Recorded
13 Jun 2026
Publisher
The Cognitive Revolution

Transcript context

…But is the future really that concentrated? I think mostly yes. Fable plus 2. Tom McGrath thinks I'm wrong on the facts and on the desirability. He made his case and it's a good one. When you think about the strategy for the company and the overall path to impact, how much of this works through getting Frontier model companies to adopt these techniques? For context, obviously we're in Fable Plus 2 and my kind of reluctant, but I can't figure out a way or figure out a reason I should conclude otherwise, view right now is like so much of what matters is concentrated in not that many companies. And so for like what we should be paying attention to, I'm kind of like, man, we probably need to be doing close strategic analysis and like close text reading of frontier companies way more than I might otherwise like. Or do you have a different conception of how concentrated the the real kind of ability to shape the future is right now. Yeah, I don't think it's that concentrated. I also don't want it to be that concentrated. I think we've seen over the last couple of days what you have when we've just seen the start of power concentration and we've sort of seen some of its more unwelcome effects. So I don't like, I both don't think that it's true that basically machine learning is now over and all we need to do is like write the checks. And I also don't want it to be true. Because I think there's still kind of a synthesis there that I don't mean to suggest that machine learning is over, but the analysis I've come to kind of time and again is like people may invent new techniques that are enough to change the field, change what's possible, accelerate things, maybe make dramatic improvements to the safety profiles. But it seems unlikely that anybody's going to create such a breakthrough that scale isn't still a hugely important factor. But if I guess if you don't agree with that, then that would maybe imply that you would expect that like perhaps new entrants to the top tier could emerge. And I think that would be like fairly surprising to at least me and probably a lot of people.…

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

Search evidence