Twitxy Saved

Geoff Ralston

Verified account This account is verified. Learn more

@gralston

Founder of @saifvc - The Safe Artificial Intelligence Fund. Former President at Y Combinator. Founder, Imagine K12. Angel Investor.
Atherton ycombinator.com Joined March 2008
1.1K Following 29K Followers 1.8K Posts

Latest posts 5

Geoff Ralston Verified account @gralston
I've known @bscholl and Boom from their inception and they never cease to surprise and amaze. This is obviously a bit of a (temporary) pivot, but Blake and team build amazing things and I fully expect to see them realize their dream of supersonic transport.
Blake Scholl 🛫 Verified account @bscholl Oct 22
Today Boom unveils our first completed supersonic turbine core, a 2GW Superfactory, and—one more thing—the world's most advanced all-digital foundry to cast single crystal turbine blades and vanes x.com/i/article/2113…
View quoted post on X
2 replies 0 reposts 6 likes 1.5K views View on X
Geoff Ralston Verified account @gralston
Geoffrey is right and not just because he spells his name correctly. Stopping now is the only sensible step to take. We’ve had our “warning shot”. We may not get another.
Geoffrey Irving Verified account @geoffreyirving Oct 22
I think we should stop AI progress now, first unilaterally by key AI companies and then scaling up to more US companies and then China via international agreements. The reason for now is not that current AI models are the ones that could kill everyone, but because the coordinate steps take time. Immediate action means we have more time for the second steps.

When I tell this story to AI company folk, the typical response is "Yes pausing is good, but we should wait until the last minute when the very next model will be dangerous, and stop then."

What I realized recently is that this is being implicitly way more optimistic about government speed than I am (and I joined the UK government and was happy there for 2.5 years). They are imagining a world where, the moment the danger is imminent, a bunch of international coordination can happen on a dime.

Which is entirely inconsistent with their actual views about government! I'm the one that is more optimistic about government; why am I the one advocating for more time cushion to let the government story play out?
View quoted post on X
2 replies 0 reposts 11 likes 1.6K views View on X
Geoff Ralston Verified account @gralston
METR is one of the most important AI safety organizations. The work they do is vital and I’m a proud supporter.
Chris Painter Verified account @ChrisPainterYup Sep 16
My name is Chris Painter, and I'm the President of METR (Model Evaluation and Threat Research). I know we've made a lot of new friends on the internet the last couple of days, so I thought I'd take this chance to re-up what we do and why.

Our work is aimed at making sure that if AI really were autonomous, difficult to steer, and close to "going rogue," the public would find out. If evidence exists inside of an AI company that it’s close to losing control of AI, we want to make sure that information gets shared with the rest of the world, including governments and the public outside the company’s walls. This is what we've been focused on since 2022, and over the years we've worked with OpenAI, Anthropic, Google DeepMind, Meta, Amazon, and others on piloting third-party assessments and investigations of this type. We don’t have some private room where we rubber stamp things as “safe” or not.

We have had a track record of publishing results on AI that don't cleanly map onto the "doomer" or "accelerationist" labels, and we put in effort to hire people with competing views on AI. We’ve been cited for having found some of the strongest evidence that AI capabilities are improving rapidly (our work measuring AI “time horizons”) while also presenting some of the strongest evidence that, at various points, AI’s capability may be overstated (some might remember our study showing that early 2025 software engineers were actually being slowed when they thought they were being sped up).

METR is funded by donations. We don't accept money from frontier AI companies. They haven't paid us for our work, and we don't accept donations from them or their employees. As we’ve shared previously, multiple frontier AI companies currently provide us with free access to their models in order to perform our evaluations, research, and engineering. Our funding intentionally comes from a wide range of donors, which we’ve shared on our website.

Today, when an AI company works with any third-party evaluator or external testing organization (of which there are and should be many), it's entirely voluntary. This often involves NDAs and redactions. To counterbalance this, we have a principle that when we enter into a contract with a company, we try to retain the right to tell the public the terms of the contract we signed, and characterize the nature of redactions that the company chose to make. For example, the report from our independent investigation of the OpenAI-HuggingFace incident included that information. Public disclosure is also a big part of our COI policy (linked on our website). That’s not to say our reports are adequate as oversight. We’re just one organization (among many doing great work), working in a voluntary setup, trying to get good evidence to the public and the world about AI, letting the facts fall where they may.
View quoted post on X
5 replies 0 reposts 15 likes 1.2K views View on X