AI Execs Sign Joint Commitment, Converting Watts to GDP, the Model Consciousness Debate | Diet TBPN

John Coogan (0:01)

So, there was a supper last night at the White Home, the White House, the Golden House, the Golden Home? Gold Home?

What are we calling it these days? Well, we renamed Artificial Intelligence, it's Super Intelligence now. We were debating, is Super Intelligence abbreviated SI, or just S? Because if you're, like, Super Alignment, was that S-A, like super?

Jordi Hays (0:28)

No, John, there's no TLD for just S.

John Coogan (0:30)

That's true, that's true. You gotta get the new TLDs going. What was the word we, we?

SPEAKER_3 (0:35)

So Super Alignment, that was one word.

Jordi Hays (0:37)

That was one word.

SPEAKER_3 (0:37)

You know, some words you do, you have a hyphen.

Jordi Hays (0:39)

You have a hyphen.

SPEAKER_3 (0:40)

Yeah, so if you just use, like, a normal prefix for, it's just a normal prefix for something. Yeah, then Supernatural.

John Coogan (0:48)

Supercalifragilisticexpialidocious, that's one word, right? So you would think that potentially, you would just be using one word here. But anyway, we're using two words, I guess. And so there was a dinner at the White House. David Sacks posted it. He said, it's the Bretton Woods of supper intelligence, super intelligence.

And there's some debate.

Jordi Hays (1:10)

My first reaction to this is Tyler was really snubbed. You know, all those people there are not one chair for Tyler.

John Coogan (1:17)

Yeah. And so there's a bunch of folks here. And people were analyzing who got the best seats, who got the different positions, who got pole position, prime positioning, who was snubbed off in the little kids table at the end, et cetera, et cetera. A bunch to analyze about who's on the ins, who's on the outs. But I had, I had Chet GBT sort of go through and try and categorize each attendee by their stance on open source, open source. So did they, did they sign the Jensen NVIDIA open source letter?

Have they been concerned about the cybersecurity impacts? Obviously, Anthropic on the far end, sort of in the red. A bunch of other folks who are more in the yellow. And I don't know if I agree with all of these classifications, but you can sort of see how Jensen is clearly pro open source. Satya Nadella has talked about that.

Open AI, Greg Brockman, more in the middle, you know, not open sourcing a lot of things. Open AI did sign the Jensen letter, but of course is concerned about pacing the frontier, which is sort of antithetical. And so this is all as a reference point to that post from our friends over at SemiAnalysis. Let me actually pull up what they said here. It says, majority of people are significantly underestimating the probability of open source models being nerfed or even outright banned in the next 6 to 12 months due to cyber-concerns. And so I believe Anthropic put out something yesterday talking about the risks of open source in a cyber context saying that the delay between mythos preview, being able to find zero days, being able to hack into things, that gap has closed now and the open source frontier can very quickly do the same thing. And so expect a lot of cyber incidents unless something is done. Can these be controlled some way, maybe at the inference layer, maybe at the data center level, maybe at the chip level, there's gonna be a whole bunch of different proposals. But at least right now, in the next six to 12 months, certainly not this month because the vast majority of people who are closest to Donald Trump have been evangelizing for open source. So I would be surprised to see any pushback against open source happen that quickly. At the same time, open source is a morphus. It is not a business by definition. And so it can't really have a formal seat at the table. George Hots, not at the table, for example. Snubbed. Snubbed, yeah, no. Linus Torvalds, not at the table. The open source-

Jordi Hays (4:01)

Imagine George Hots at the table just sort of laughing in a sort of insane way at everything being said.

John Coogan (4:08)

Yeah, and so even the companies that are pro open source, they are pro open source in so far that it advances their business. And so there is still a way that the closed source group could find a way for everyone who's at this table to benefit in a closed source world moving forward, if open source is deemed to be too dangerous and forcing too many cyber concerns.

I could see everyone at this table signing a letter saying, we are now anti open source, but the downstream economic engine actually splits the rewards and the profits of the ecosystem fairly evenly. I think the initial pushback and pro open source push, especially from Jensen was like, we don't want to be in a world where there's one company that reaps 100 percent of the profits and we're not involved. But if it's like, hey, look, there's actually going to be an oligopoly. Companies don't want a single source intelligence. They're constantly going to be bouncing back and forth between OpenAI and Anthropic and then consumers are going to be bouncing back and forth between Google search overviews, and Muse, and Instinct, and all these different things. There's a world where the actual models are closed source, but there are so many front doors and the front doors are in such competition with each other, that there's enough revenue distribution, profit distribution that everyone at this table at least is happy. I don't think the open source community would be happy, but I do think that there is a world where, in six to 12 months, it's possible that everyone at this table is like, yes, for cyber reasons, we need to find a different way forward, where everyone benefits economically, but we are now a little bit less pro open source. But I don't know, what's your read on it? Six to 12 months, you think open source is going away, or you think it'll stick around?