Dan Hendrycks: belief

Transcript context

…I mean that is that is the question. Yeah. We we should have a second edition of this 2 years from the day and see how it goes Yeah. Yeah. Okay. So so 1 thing worth clarifying since some people may be confused. I'm sort of in the middle of thinking through AI timelines and largely because I'm sort of trying to reflect on, what intelligence is in a sort of multidimensional way. We maybe got a little bit spoiled with reading writing ability and crystallized intelligence. Main progress over the past 2 years or so has been in mathematical ability and short term memory is also better. But so I'm still wrapping my head around that since I'm being more noncommittal about some of these different forecasts where I think maybe it still seems very plausible, more than plausible by 2,030 something that has the cognitive abilities of a typical human, some system like that. There's some differences in how things might play out at a technical level. I in AI 2027, I I I don't think much really goes through technique mechanistic interpretability or technical solutions really solving much of it. I think you need to really ease the geopolitical competitive pressures. I think the main dynamics that make way for that are transparency and the espionage and how easy it is to do espionage, as well as the sabotageability of that, which I think are very important dynamics that are that are in some ways reflected in there but not totally captured. And sabotageability, for instance, if China were interested in stopping The US, they could do some sort of cyber attack on some power utilities, but say that that doesn't work. They can also there's just there's basically a lot of vulnerabilities, that they can exploit. For instance, they could they could, from a few miles away, snipe the power plants, transformers, and that would, take down the the data center. So I think that that and there's lower attribute ability. Was it Russia? Was it Iran? Was it China? Was it some, US citizen, as an example? So I think that affects the strategic dynamics where I speak about that in in superintelligence strategy, as well as I think the transparency that China has to The US would be relatively high. Right now, it's a matter of hacking Slack, then you can see Anthropic Slack. You can see OpenAI Slack. You can see XAI Slack, Google DeepMind Slack. So you can have very high transparency there and hack the phones of top leadership as well. So this paints in some ways a different picture, but I think we'd agree that we want to work toward a verification regime so as to have red lines around things like intelligence explosions and things like that. I won't really say anything more substantive, but I will say this, I thought this was a fantastic conversation. I hope that it won't be cut too much, because it was really interesting and I I salute anybody who made it through watching the entire thing. We we got pretty technical at times and really laid out, I think, where the state of play is today, which was my fondest hope. I I think we did a great job with that. Thank you, gentlemen. Shake hands for the camera. Alright.…

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