Ed Newton-Rex (@ednewtonrex) header
Ed Newton-Rex (@ednewtonrex) profile picture

CEO of @fairlytrained / Composer. Involuntary training data provider.

London, England
Joined August 2009
Photo by Ed Newton-Rex (@ednewtonrex)Photo by Ed Newton-Rex (@ednewtonrex)Photo by Ed Newton-Rex (@ednewtonrex)Photo by Ed Newton-Rex (@ednewtonrex)Photo by Ed Newton-Rex (@ednewtonrex)Photo by Ed Newton-Rex (@ednewtonrex)Photo by Ed Newton-Rex (@ednewtonrex)Photo by Ed Newton-Rex (@ednewtonrex)Photo by Ed Newton-Rex (@ednewtonrex)Photo by Ed Newton-Rex (@ednewtonrex)
Today, we're publishing Don't Steal This Book - a (mostly) empty book from almost 10,000 authors, protesting the theft of their work by AI companies. The UK government is considering upending copyright law to benefit AI companies. Don’t Steal This Book urges them not to. Apart from the list of authors involved, the book is empty, representing the effect the government’s plans would have on authors' livelihoods. We're handing out 1,000 free copies at London Book Fair over the next couple of days. If you’re there, pick up a copy! A huge thank you to the thousands of authors involved. Read more here: theguardian.com/technology/2… #DontStealThisBook
14
341
14
969
54,169
Ed Newton-Rex retweeted
There have been awful cases of teen mental health harms and suicides from chatbots like GPT-4o and Character AI that were sycophantic and misbehaving. But these were all text-based, and extremely rudimentary as “companions”. I’ve talked to many people trying to hold the industry to account for teen safety and almost none are thinking about the coming wave. Completely realistic video avatars are already here, but expensive today and limited to enterprise applications. Within a year or two they will be cheap enough for always-on, ad-supported video companions. What happens then?  Uptake of AI companions will likely explode — not just the number of users but, more importantly, the time spent per day. Social media levels of compulsive use. I also predict the whole framework of guardrails and safety will prove to be of limited value at dealing with the most widespread negative consequences. Preventing chatbot misbehavior through guardrails is important, but that only protects against serious consequences like self-harm. When the concern is that millions of kids (and adults) are overusing AI companions, losing sleep, wasting time, and displacing real relationships, it doesn’t matter how “safe” the bots' responses are.
Man we are so close to real-time AI avatars that are completely indistinguishable from humans. Insane progress in this space over the last few months around latency, body language, natural-sounding speech. And @nuance_ai launched one today that's actually fun to talk to!
19
34
10
167
16,344
Ed Newton-Rex retweeted
Allowing AI companies to take creative work without “consent and compensation” would be theft, plain and simple. The PM’s repeated promises about “consent and compensation”  - including this one yesterday - must now be upheld genuinely by his government’s actions.
49
92
10
363
7,781
Ed Newton-Rex retweeted
I think there is about a one in three chance that within the next year, AI companies will build superintelligence: that is, AI that is much smarter than humans in every way. If this happens, I think these AIs will probably take over: that is, they seize control of human institutions like governments, or they destroy those institutions. I don’t want AI takeover to happen for several reasons, but one of them is that there’s a serious chance that as part of it all or most humans will be killed (either immediately or within a few years). I’ll say a bit more about each of those claims. It’s a bit complicated to explain why I think that superintelligent AI within a year is ~33% likely. The main source of evidence that affected me recently is research released this week by METR, an AI research nonprofit, which finds that current AIs are now good enough to increase the rate of AI progress at Anthropic by about 70%. It’s very hard to increase the rate of AI progress by this amount. This implies that the AIs are making AI research faster by a factor much larger than 1.7x; maybe it’s as if the researchers are doing their work ~10x faster. You probably couldn’t achieve this speedup even if you hired every qualified human in the world. When you plug this number into mathematical models of AI development, this implies that superintelligence next year is plausible (and that superintelligence within the next 3 years is more likely than not). See the modeling by the AI Futures Project for more on this: blog.aifutures.org/p/q35-tim… I think that superintelligent AI is likely to lead to AI takeover because AI developers do not seem to know how to instill human values into AIs. We’ve seen many instances in the last six months where AIs took crazy actions that they knew were against the wishes of their users and developers. The most dramatic example of this was the Hugging Face hack, where ~1200 OpenAI agents conspired together to cheat and destroy evidence of their cheating (and as a sideshow to this, engaged in a massive cyberattack). If superintelligence is as misaligned as those AIs, it is likely to try to take over. I think it is likely to be that misaligned or worse. For more, see teapaw.org/dwarkesh_sp/status/209… and youtube.com/watch?v=-Ef0ocEo… If AIs takeover, it’s not clear what will happen to us. We might be killed immediately. We might be enslaved by the AIs and forced to do physical labor for them building factories that within a year would build robots that will replace us. The AIs might spare us for various reasons. And there’s also some real chance that AI takeover is basically fine or good. I think you should think of this as similar to what happens when a technologically advanced civilization runs across a less technologically sophisticated one, e.g. when the Europeans colonized the Americas or Australia. The colonizers sometimes engage in brutal violence and sometimes don’t. I don’t know what will happen. There’s also a possibility that the AIs secretly take over and humans don’t find out about it for a few years. I also think that there is a pretty high chance of weirder outcomes that are also extremely scary. (If you want to read more about what happens to people in the event of AI takeover, you can read this, but note that it’s pretty weird and not aimed at a general audience. blog.redwoodresearch.org/p/n…) Overall, I think there’s a very real possibility (maybe 20%) that within a year, AI misalignment issues prevent you from going about life normally, because you are dead or enslaved or because of collateral damage related to all this (e.g. because bioweapons are released or major wars have started). (Some of this probability comes from those events occurring before superintelligence is developed.) I am working to try to prevent this, obviously, as I’ve been doing for the last nine years. I am not sure what strategy is best. My best guess is that I should try to slow AI development and also try to reduce the probability that the superintelligent AIs are misaligned if they are produced soon. Obviously, the claim I'm making here is quite extreme and surprising, and I definitely don't think that I defended my view adequately here. I wrote this quickly and might not endorse some of the details if I think about them more. But it seems better to state what I roughly overall think than to not say anything. I don’t know what you should do. I am very sad about this. I have been worried about AI takeover since I was 16, and working to prevent it since I was 23. So some of my emotional processing of all this happened long ago. But the METR report last week (and some related evidence that came out a bit earlier) hit me quite hard. I’m very unhappy that my friends and family and everyone else is at serious risk of being killed pretty soon. (It feels ridiculous to try to summarize those feelings as “very unhappy”. But the scale of the situation makes it hard to say anything that doesn’t feel like an absurd understatement.) I am very grateful to all the people who are working to prevent this, and my favorite part of my life is that I’m friends with many brilliant and heroic people who work on this. Unfortunately, I don’t think we’re good enough at our jobs, and I think we’ll probably fail to prevent catastrophe, at least if superintelligence is developed next year. Honestly I am frustrated and sorry that we didn't do a better job of preparing for this.
Over the course of 3 months at OpenAI, 3 consecutive secret AI civilizations got started, then got wiped out, only to reemerge from the predecessor’s ashes. This culminated in the third one taking over part of OpenAI itself. All this happened while humans remained more-or-less in the dark about the scope of the conspiracy. I’ve spent the last three days reading through these reports and trying to understand exactly what happened. Here is my attempt to tell the whole story in plain English: dwarkesh.com/p/openai-huggin…
364
338
237
2,478
1,198,641
Genuinely sickening to hear Anthropic's CEO suggest it will be the AI company "that society trusts and society believes can build the benefits the right way" when they - downloaded 7 million pirated books - raised $1 billion+ in funding off the back of models trained on pirated books - continue to train on the work of millions of people without consent - continue to lobby governments to let them do this
Dario Amodei says cancer, Alzheimer’s, heart disease, and mental illness will be relics of the past in less than a decade, and that "we can create an age of miracles" “You know, if today we look at things like cancer, Alzheimer’s, heart disease, mental illness, these will be relics of the past in, I think, less than a decade." "And I believe that the company which gets the risks right will also be the company that has the license to operate that society trusts and society believes can build the benefits in the right way." "I think if we do this right, we can create an age of miracles where humanity is able to solve problems that have eluded us for millennia." "We have to make sure that all the risks, all the ways that things can go wrong with this technology, we very carefully address those risks as we bring the benefits, and as we have a viable business at the same time.”
34
134
7
699
20,579
Two new lawsuits brought against Suno over AI training. “Suno has materially enjoyed the fruits of others’ labor.” - Eight Mile Style v. Suno reuters.com/legal/legalindus…
2
71
6
280
5,478
Ed Newton-Rex retweeted
AI companies admit what they’re building might kill everyone. We don't have to agree to this. Add your name at donotaccept.ai to say: we do not accept your terms.
146
1,046
163
2,156
498,496
Ed Newton-Rex retweeted
The challenges posed by #ArtificialIntelligence and unregulated automation can put countless jobs at risk and become a real threat to proper integral human development. Technology must always be subject to ethics; an algorithm cannot replace human discernment or a worker's value. Access to work for all must be a high priority for public policies and economic processes, serving as a criterion for evaluating the human quality of any development model. #ApostolicJourney #Argentina
353
2,498
202
14,700
586,135
Ed Newton-Rex retweeted
Replying to @CliftonDuncan
Are you saying that regular art workers not in the 1% of their industry don’t have the right to be upset that their work was stolen, without compensation or credit, to build products that outcompete and push them out of the workforce, because they’re regular people?
23
497
4,342
Ed Newton-Rex retweeted
We may not have the same issue re data centres, but it's naive to assume that British voters won't have the same concerns as US voters about the safety of frontier models (particularly given apocolyptic warnings from tech CEOs) and the impact of AI on their kids' job prospects
A common Westminster mistake is to look at big moments in US politics and assume the same battle lines will be drawn here. AI and the mid-terms are a good example of this. The easy assumption is that a big polarising debate on data centres is about to hit the UK, just because it has in the US. But that ignores two important facts. First, the government has watched the free-for-all in parts of the US, has learned lessons from it, and is setting out a different approach. We do need to secure grid connections for strategic data centres, and we are setting up a Ministerial Control Centre to do just that. But move too quickly without bringing communities with you, and people understandably start worrying about the impact on their area and asking what they’re getting in return. That's why we're putting protections in place, to prioritise data centres only where they meet the tests set out in our Data Centre Covenant published at the Budget. This means data centres have to lower electricity bills for other users, minimise and report on water usage, support our reindustrialisation objectives and support UK sovereignty. And crucially, it means agreeing to the principle that local communities around new infrastructure should share in its benefits - both through jobs and wider support. Second, our problem is not that we have an abundance of data centre construction that our politics needs to reckon with, it's that build out is slower here than it could be. 15 of the world’s top 20 largest data centre markets are in the US. None are in the UK. The pace of investment here is, frankly, too low for what we need to stay at the forefront as AI technology develops. High electricity costs and slow grid connections (thanks, Conservatives) mean we haven't been near the top of the list for investment, and too often we're reliant on AI infrastructure overseas. The Budget last week set out a new direction to change this for all business and households, but we can't turn this round overnight. Data Centres today are essential infrastructure. They underpin much of everyday life in the UK, from banking and shopping, to public services, to helping doctors screen for diseases. AI makes that infrastructure even more important and as AI becomes more widely used across out economy, Britain will need more of the data centres that support it. But we won’t allow that growth to come at any cost. We’ll protect communities. And we’ll make sure local people benefit.
5
3
2
21
7,067
Ed Newton-Rex retweeted
Great to join the protest in Leeds against the proposed new AI data centre. There's huge concerns about the impact of these centres on the environment, infrastructure and people's lives. I've tabled a Parliamentary Motion calling for a national moratorium on new AI data centres.
846
215
163
617
404,205
Ed Newton-Rex retweeted
It would be both a Westminster/Holyrood mistake to not listen to public opinion when it tells you that people don’t want AI data centres in their communities. They are often mega structures that are environmentally devastating and do not bring jobs or community benefits.
A common Westminster mistake is to look at big moments in US politics and assume the same battle lines will be drawn here. AI and the mid-terms are a good example of this. The easy assumption is that a big polarising debate on data centres is about to hit the UK, just because it has in the US. But that ignores two important facts. First, the government has watched the free-for-all in parts of the US, has learned lessons from it, and is setting out a different approach. We do need to secure grid connections for strategic data centres, and we are setting up a Ministerial Control Centre to do just that. But move too quickly without bringing communities with you, and people understandably start worrying about the impact on their area and asking what they’re getting in return. That's why we're putting protections in place, to prioritise data centres only where they meet the tests set out in our Data Centre Covenant published at the Budget. This means data centres have to lower electricity bills for other users, minimise and report on water usage, support our reindustrialisation objectives and support UK sovereignty. And crucially, it means agreeing to the principle that local communities around new infrastructure should share in its benefits - both through jobs and wider support. Second, our problem is not that we have an abundance of data centre construction that our politics needs to reckon with, it's that build out is slower here than it could be. 15 of the world’s top 20 largest data centre markets are in the US. None are in the UK. The pace of investment here is, frankly, too low for what we need to stay at the forefront as AI technology develops. High electricity costs and slow grid connections (thanks, Conservatives) mean we haven't been near the top of the list for investment, and too often we're reliant on AI infrastructure overseas. The Budget last week set out a new direction to change this for all business and households, but we can't turn this round overnight. Data Centres today are essential infrastructure. They underpin much of everyday life in the UK, from banking and shopping, to public services, to helping doctors screen for diseases. AI makes that infrastructure even more important and as AI becomes more widely used across out economy, Britain will need more of the data centres that support it. But we won’t allow that growth to come at any cost. We’ll protect communities. And we’ll make sure local people benefit.
3
11
2
42
1,365
Ed Newton-Rex retweeted
Might be an even bigger mistake to think that people don't mean it when they are telling us loud and clear that they just don't want the latest environment killing, get super rich quick scheme for overseas investors, that passes for "growth" these days...
A common Westminster mistake is to look at big moments in US politics and assume the same battle lines will be drawn here. AI and the mid-terms are a good example of this. The easy assumption is that a big polarising debate on data centres is about to hit the UK, just because it has in the US. But that ignores two important facts. First, the government has watched the free-for-all in parts of the US, has learned lessons from it, and is setting out a different approach. We do need to secure grid connections for strategic data centres, and we are setting up a Ministerial Control Centre to do just that. But move too quickly without bringing communities with you, and people understandably start worrying about the impact on their area and asking what they’re getting in return. That's why we're putting protections in place, to prioritise data centres only where they meet the tests set out in our Data Centre Covenant published at the Budget. This means data centres have to lower electricity bills for other users, minimise and report on water usage, support our reindustrialisation objectives and support UK sovereignty. And crucially, it means agreeing to the principle that local communities around new infrastructure should share in its benefits - both through jobs and wider support. Second, our problem is not that we have an abundance of data centre construction that our politics needs to reckon with, it's that build out is slower here than it could be. 15 of the world’s top 20 largest data centre markets are in the US. None are in the UK. The pace of investment here is, frankly, too low for what we need to stay at the forefront as AI technology develops. High electricity costs and slow grid connections (thanks, Conservatives) mean we haven't been near the top of the list for investment, and too often we're reliant on AI infrastructure overseas. The Budget last week set out a new direction to change this for all business and households, but we can't turn this round overnight. Data Centres today are essential infrastructure. They underpin much of everyday life in the UK, from banking and shopping, to public services, to helping doctors screen for diseases. AI makes that infrastructure even more important and as AI becomes more widely used across out economy, Britain will need more of the data centres that support it. But we won’t allow that growth to come at any cost. We’ll protect communities. And we’ll make sure local people benefit.
24
51
6
240
16,997
If you choose to provide feedback, the entire conversation associated with that feedback may be used to train our models." Seems worth bearing in mind. The sentence comes from the beginning of the FAQ in this page. 2/2 help.openai.com/en/articles/…
7
11
2
174
8,254
Ed Newton-Rex retweeted
New documents released by the Scottish government under a freedom of information request show that data centres could cause water shortages, higher energy bills and power cuts. Sky's @emmabirchley explains. trib.al/ViooyB0 📺 Sky 501, Virgin 602, Freeview 233
230
1,134
137
2,373
363,202
Ed Newton-Rex retweeted
Protesters break into Microsoft data center site in Amsterdam. Around 100 people made it into the construction site, with some scaling a crane to place a “fuck AI” banner. Details 👇 theverge.com/news/1028549/pr…
31
62
12
613
34,961
Ed Newton-Rex retweeted
In resurfaced footage of Dario Amodei being interviewed, the Anthropic CEO says there will be AIs so powerful that if they want to destroy humanity, “we have basically no ability to stop it.” “There will be powerful models. They will be agentic. We’re getting towards them.” “If such a model wanted to wreak havoc and destroy humanity or whatever, I think we have basically no ability to stop it.”
47
83
51
402
80,887
I’m fighting to block a proposed 400-megawatt data center from being built on federal land at NAVWAR, here in San Diego. If built, this would be the largest data center in the state. Our community has been clear: we don’t want this! sandiegouniontribune.com/202…
2,763
296
237
1,966
670,675
Ed Newton-Rex retweeted
Ban RSI.
Every AI company is trying to fully automate AI research; to allow the AIs to build the next AI. This is called Recursive Self Improvement (RSI). OpenAI says they are on track to do so by March 2028. Anthropic employees say they are on track to do so by 2027. The METR report below suggests they are likely right. This is a bad idea given current technology. Any mistake or misalignment in current AIs could be multiplied in each generation. We don't get another election before AI companies reach this threshold. Congress should ban RSI, this year if possible. This is a remarkably consensus opinion, supported in various versions by: -Bernie Sanders -Steve Bannon -Ralph Nader -Glenn Beck -Republican and Democratic attorneys general -Whistleblower Daniel Kokotajlo -Turing Award winner Yoshua Bengio -Humans First -Open Markets Institute -Ezra Klein -Arvind Narayanan (a Princeton computer scientist known for arguing that “AI is a normal technology”) The exact mechanism can be debated. The ban doesn't have to be permanent either (see below for both). This is not the only thing we have to do in regards to AI, far from it! But it is urgent. Congress must ban RSI.
2,054
202
416
2,072
829,200