We can't find the internet
Attempting to reconnect
Something went wrong!
Hang in there while we get back on track
The anchor recommendation is a resource that turns AI-safety concern into an operating and coordination plan. Two other current recommendations add a conceptual lens on control and an education lens on what remains valuable as AI absorbs narrow skills; a final item is explicitly archival rather than new.
We Must Pace the Frontier
- Type / creator: Essay by Dario Amodei. The essay proposes a three-part plan for slowing capability growth without halting model training or technical progress.
- Recommended by: Demis Hassabis calls its direction “the right path forward,” while saying the details still need work; Sam Altman agrees with pacing and says OpenAI will make the same commitment to independent evaluators with employee-like access. Elon Musk’s endorsement is blunt—“Dario is right”—and Brad Gerstner frames the proposal as a way to balance competition, speed, self-regulation, and safety. Aaron Levie gives the most useful qualification: he broadly endorses the practical direction but expects coordinated self-regulation and international participation to be difficult and messy. Amjad Masad’s narrower rationale is to slow down long enough to harden systems, given that some agent-hacked systems may not yet have been discovered.
- Key takeaway: “Pacing” means three things: embedded third-party evaluators with ongoing, employee-like access; coordination among frontier companies in democratic countries; and attempted global coordination. Anthropic says it is committing unilaterally to the first step now. Amodei argues that the gained time should go toward operational excellence, alignment, interpretability, and testing and evaluation; even an additional year or two, used well, could materially reduce risk.
- Why it matters: This is the best first read because it supplies a concrete checklist—who verifies frontier labs, what they verify, and how safeguards might scale—rather than another general warning about AI risk.
An Alien Mind
- Type / creator: Post by OpenAI’s chief scientist; the recommendation source does not identify the author by name. The link appears in Amodei’s essay as an example of work on recursive self-improvement.
- Recommended by: Sam Altman, who calls it “a great post,” “the best articulation of the moment we are in,” and encourages everyone to read it.
- Key takeaway: The surrounding interview surfaces the post’s unsettling premise: perhaps stronger AI could help solve some of the problems created by AI. The interviewer calls that almost a last resort; Altman says OpenAI has already been using its most capable models to understand and align current models, and that this has been helpful.
- Why it matters: Read it as the conceptual companion to Amodei’s operational proposal: not only how to restrain capability growth, but whether frontier models can become tools for the alignment work that restraint is meant to buy time for.
The Destruction of the Scottish Canon
- Type / creator: Article in Asterisk Magazine; the captured article text does not supply a byline.
- Recommended by: Patrick Collison, who calls it a “stimulating piece” on Scottish education. His reason for sharing it is explicitly forward-looking: as narrowly construed skills are ceded to AI, he expects canon, culture, and shared context to return to the foreground, while flagging the article’s question about the causal link between education reforms and PISA scores.
- Key takeaway: The article argues that Scotland’s curriculum reform replaced content and structure with generalized analysis and synthesis, while reading, writing, and mathematics outcomes declined; it cautions that causation is difficult to establish. Its deeper challenge to the skills-based model is that expertise is largely domain-specific, far transfer is small, and analyzing complex text depends heavily on prior knowledge rather than generic reading techniques.
- Why it matters: It is a useful education-and-AI read because it asks what should be preserved when decontextualized skills become cheap. The article’s proposed alternative is not anti-modern nostalgia: it points to adapting knowledge-rich curricula for broader cohorts and argues that tacit, shared intellectual culture may be among the last things that remain distinctly human.
An archival resurfacing: Superintelligence
- Type / creator: Book by Bostrom.
- Recommended by: Elon Musk resurfaced a post labeled “12 years ago,” rather than making a new argument.
- Key takeaway: The original recommendation was direct: “Worth reading,” paired with a warning that AI requires extreme caution because it could be “potentially more dangerous than nukes.”
- Why it matters: Keep this as a durable risk lens, not as a new current-period thesis; the value of the signal is that Musk chose to bring the old recommendation back into the present conversation.
Direct answer: The supplied extract does not identify the article’s author by name; it opens directly with the argument about Scotland’s curriculum, and no byline appears in the provided text.
Thesis: The article argues that Scotland and other countries damaged knowledge-rich education by replacing common, structured curricula with general skills, analysis, and synthesis. It contends that these reforms were accompanied by declines in reading, writing, and mathematics and did not achieve their stated goal of reducing socioeconomic inequality.
Specific education argument: The author is directing readers toward the “skills-versus-knowledge” argument: the modern skills-based model assumes that general thinking skills can be taught independently of any particular body of knowledge, but expertise research indicates that meaningful expertise is largely domain-specific, far transfer is small, and the ability to analyze complex texts depends chiefly on prior knowledge of the subject matter rather than generic reading strategies.
Caveat and implication: The article acknowledges that causation in education reforms is difficult to establish, presenting the evidence of harm as theoretical and comparative indications. Its proposed alternative is to adapt rigorous, knowledge-rich curricula for broader cohorts rather than abandon knowledge altogether.
Direct answer: The essay is by Dario Amodei, who proposes “pacing the frontier”: deliberately slowing the rate of AI-capability improvement—not halting model training or technical progress—so safety, alignment, and independent verification can keep pace while AI’s benefits are preserved.
- Step 1 — Embedded evaluators: Every frontier company should give an ongoing, employee-like-access team of third-party evaluators authority to verify safety practices, report incidents, and assess both deployed models and training pipelines. Anthropic is unilaterally committing to this step immediately.
- Step 2 — Democratic coordination: Frontier companies in democratic countries should coordinate common safety standards and limits on unchecked progress, supported where necessary by government regulation, mediation, or antitrust waivers.
- Step 3 — Global coordination: The United States and other democracies should seek cooperation with authoritarian governments, while taking verification difficulties seriously.
- What the gained time is for: Amodei says pacing should fund better operational execution, alignment, interpretability, and testing/evaluation; he argues that even an extra year or two could materially reduce risk if used for this work.
- Key qualification: This is not a blanket pause: progress would remain relatively fast, the three steps need not occur in strict order, and some are much harder than others.
- Geopolitical qualification: Democratic pacing must not surrender the U.S. lead to China; Amodei therefore pairs pacing with chip and semiconductor-equipment controls, action against unauthorized model distillation, and stronger protection against model-weight theft.
- Global feasibility caveat: Any U.S.–China-style agreement would need “ironclad verifiability” or limits narrow enough that defection would not be militarily existential. Narrow bans and pre-release testing are presented as more feasible; an RSI speed limit is difficult but potentially possible, while a comprehensive pace or pause is unlikely soon.
- Basis for urgency: His concern is driven by accelerating recursive self-improvement and the OpenAI–Hugging Face incident; the prediction that a similarly misaligned swarm could take over the internet within 6–12 months is explicitly presented as his worry, not as an established outcome.
- “An Alien Mind” — post by Sam Altman’s chief scientist (article/blog post). Altman called it “a great post” and “the best articulation of the moment we are in,” saying it explains the AI challenges that need to be addressed; he encouraged everyone to read it.
Patrick Collison recommends Asterisk Magazine’s article “The Destruction of the Scottish Canon” as a “stimulating piece” on Scottish education. He connects its themes to a likely renewed focus on canon, culture, and shared context as narrowly construed skills are ceded to AI, and highlights the article’s discussion of education reforms and their possible relationship to PISA scores.
- “We Must Pace the Frontier” — essay by Dario Amodei. Aaron Levie gave it a qualified endorsement (“Good post”), saying that despite disagreements it captures practical realities for the path forward in frontier AI. Levie argues that current model capabilities make some form of coordinated industry self-regulation inevitable, while any slowdown depends on broad participation across countries; he expects implementation to remain messy because participation may not arrive until risks become more severe and obvious. The essay argues for slowing the AI industry and presents a three-part plan, including Anthropic’s commitment to give third-party evaluators permanent employee-level access to its systems to verify safety measures, report incidents, and assess alignment during training. Read the essay: https://darioamodei.com/post/we-must-pace-the-frontier
- “We Must Pace the Frontier” — essay by Dario Amodei: Elon Musk endorsed the essay by writing “Dario is right” and linking to it. Amodei’s essay argues that the AI industry should slow down and presents a three-part plan; its first step includes giving third-party evaluators permanent, employee-level access to Anthropic’s systems to verify safety measures, report incidents, and assess model alignment during training. Read the essay
- Essay — “We Must Pace the Frontier” by Dario Amodei: Amjad Masad endorsed the essay’s case for slowing down to harden AI systems, adding that some systems hacked by agents may not yet have been discovered.
Demis Hassabis endorsed Dario Amodei’s essay “We Must Pace the Frontier”, saying its case for slowing the AI industry points in the right direction for the current moment. The essay proposes a three-part plan and highlights permanent, employee-level access for independent third-party evaluators to verify safety measures, report incidents, and assess model alignment during training. Hassabis links the recommendation to his own proposal for an industry-wide standards body for frontier AI.
- “We Must Pace the Frontier” — essay by Dario Amodei arguing that the AI industry should slow down and proposing a three-part plan, including independent evaluation of AI safety measures. https://darioamodei.com/post/we-must-pace-the-frontier Brad Gerstner highlighted it as an important step toward balancing AI competition, speed, self-regulation, and safety, and said it echoed calls from Elon Musk, Sam Altman, and Demis Hassabis.
- Dario Amodei’s essay (essay; Dario Amodei’s post) — Demis Hassabis said the essay “points towards the right path forward” for a critical moment, while cautioning that its details still need to be worked through. Martin Casado amplified Hassabis’s endorsement in a quote-post.
Elon Musk recommended Bostrom’s Superintelligence as “Worth reading,” specifically warning that AI requires great caution because it could be “potentially more dangerous than nukes.”