Guillaume Verdon

So we're actually, for reliability engineering, we just think that the market is much more efficient at achieving this sort of reliability optimum than sort of heavy-handed regulations that are written by the incumbents and in a subversive fashion, serves them to achieve regulatory capture.

I would say that assigning, just arbitrarily saying 30% seems very arbitrary. I think organizations would allocate whatever budget is needed to achieve the sort of reliability they need to achieve to... perform in the market. And I think third-party auditing firms would naturally pop up because how would customers know that your product is certified, reliable, right?

I would say that assigning, just arbitrarily saying 30% seems very arbitrary. I think organizations would allocate whatever budget is needed to achieve the sort of reliability they need to achieve to... perform in the market. And I think third-party auditing firms would naturally pop up because how would customers know that your product is certified, reliable, right?

I would say that assigning, just arbitrarily saying 30% seems very arbitrary. I think organizations would allocate whatever budget is needed to achieve the sort of reliability they need to achieve to... perform in the market. And I think third-party auditing firms would naturally pop up because how would customers know that your product is certified, reliable, right?

They need to see some benchmarks and those need to be done by a third party. The thing I would oppose and the thing I'm seeing that's really worrisome is there's a sort of weird sort of correlated interest between the incumbents, the big players, and the government.

They need to see some benchmarks and those need to be done by a third party. The thing I would oppose and the thing I'm seeing that's really worrisome is there's a sort of weird sort of correlated interest between the incumbents, the big players, and the government.

They need to see some benchmarks and those need to be done by a third party. The thing I would oppose and the thing I'm seeing that's really worrisome is there's a sort of weird sort of correlated interest between the incumbents, the big players, and the government.

And if the two get too close, we open the door for some sort of government-backed AI cartel that could have absolute power over the people. If they have the monopoly together on AI and nobody else has access to AI... then there's a huge power gradient there. And even if you like our current leaders, right? I think that, you know, some of the leaders in big tech today are good people.

And if the two get too close, we open the door for some sort of government-backed AI cartel that could have absolute power over the people. If they have the monopoly together on AI and nobody else has access to AI... then there's a huge power gradient there. And even if you like our current leaders, right? I think that, you know, some of the leaders in big tech today are good people.

And if the two get too close, we open the door for some sort of government-backed AI cartel that could have absolute power over the people. If they have the monopoly together on AI and nobody else has access to AI... then there's a huge power gradient there. And even if you like our current leaders, right? I think that, you know, some of the leaders in big tech today are good people.

You set up that centralized power structure. It becomes a target, right? Just like we saw at OpenAI, it becomes a market leader, has a lot of the power, and now it becomes a target for those that want to co-opt it. And so I just want separation of AI and state.

You set up that centralized power structure. It becomes a target, right? Just like we saw at OpenAI, it becomes a market leader, has a lot of the power, and now it becomes a target for those that want to co-opt it. And so I just want separation of AI and state.

You set up that centralized power structure. It becomes a target, right? Just like we saw at OpenAI, it becomes a market leader, has a lot of the power, and now it becomes a target for those that want to co-opt it. And so I just want separation of AI and state.

Some might argue in the opposite direction, like, hey, we need to close down AI, keep it behind closed doors because of geopolitical competition with our our adversaries. I think that the strength of America is its variance, is its adaptability, its dynamism, and we need to maintain that at all costs. It's our free market.

Some might argue in the opposite direction, like, hey, we need to close down AI, keep it behind closed doors because of geopolitical competition with our our adversaries. I think that the strength of America is its variance, is its adaptability, its dynamism, and we need to maintain that at all costs. It's our free market.

Some might argue in the opposite direction, like, hey, we need to close down AI, keep it behind closed doors because of geopolitical competition with our our adversaries. I think that the strength of America is its variance, is its adaptability, its dynamism, and we need to maintain that at all costs. It's our free market.

Capitalism converges on technologies of high utility much faster than centralized control. And if we let go of that, we let go of our main advantage over capitalism.

Capitalism converges on technologies of high utility much faster than centralized control. And if we let go of that, we let go of our main advantage over capitalism.

Capitalism converges on technologies of high utility much faster than centralized control. And if we let go of that, we let go of our main advantage over capitalism.

I don't know if I believe in fast takeoff. I don't think there's a hyperbolic singularity, right? A hyperbolic singularity would be achieved on a finite time horizon. I think it's just one big exponential. And the reason we have an exponential is that we have... More people, more resources, more intelligence being applied to advancing this science and the research and development.