Jason Sibley

Healthtech Finance, PE & VC investor

[NIK @ns123abc]

🚨BREAKING: Jensen Huang just EXPOSED Dario and Altman’s "Rogue AI" grift to avoid getting sued into oblivion under EXISTING law

“Don't let this doomsday narrative cause somebody to relieve them of the laws that currently exist.

Go and read between the lines. They're actually not asking for more laws; they're asking to be relieved of the laws we do have.”

ABSOLUTE TRUTH NUKE

[David Sacks @DavidSacks]

Another Karp heater: the AI labs have repped themselves as if they do not have the sense God gave a goat, so Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren are just monetizing it.

[Jon Najarian @jonnajarian]

With no moats the existing AI labs have decided to spread fear so regularion helps them create a permanent duopoly - Steve Eisman

[Jason Sibley @JDSibley]

Not again

[David Sacks @DavidSacks]

This is Trust & Safety 2.0.

The last time we had media-generated panics like this (with Russiagate and Covid), social media companies created “trust & safety” teams to censor conservative and dissident voices. Those hires worked with left-wing NGOs like the SPLC to police public discourse and do an end-run around the First Amendment. It almost worked, until Elon bought Twitter and exposed the whole game in the Twitter Files.

This time the plan is to embed unfireable EA minders inside every AI company as the new trust-and-safety layer. The censorship and control will be far more comprehensive, but also more subtle. Anytime they don’t get what they want, this unaccountable NGO layer (with the veneer of “trust the experts” pseudoscience) will shriek to the press that the AI company is risking humanity, and they will be celebrated as “whistleblowers.”

These groups haven’t earned our trust, and their agenda is not our safety.

https://t.co/3eIsHxaC7h

[Mark Zuckerberg @finkd]

Last month I wrote about how we can build a positive and safe future for everyone: https://t.co/eoLGVY8yad

Every lab has the responsibility and incentive to move at the pace required to train its models safely, and the ability to take its own actions to ensure that happens.

The reality is:

- People won't want to use agents that are misaligned with them and that don't do what they ask, so labs have a strong natural incentive to make their models more aligned.

There is a lot of debate about slowing progress on capabilities until alignment catches up. My view is that trust and alignment are quickly becoming the most important capabilities that will differentiate agents and models. Any lab that doesn't focus on alignment will fall behind.

- Labs face significant liability if their models cause harm, so they have a strong incentive to prevent this as well.

Meta delayed shipping Muse for several months to focus on safety and security. We didn't call for everyone else to do this before we would. We just did it as part of our day-to-day work because it was clearly the right thing for people and for us. I'm proud of the security foundations we've built.

- Engaging independent evaluators and advisors is industry best practice. MSL already does this today in several areas because it helps produce better work. Other labs can just do this too. In general, it would be helpful for there to be a larger and more diverse ecosystem of evaluators.

- Committing the significant majority of compute towards serving people rather than racing towards recursive self-improvement is one of the best ways to ensure we develop this technology safely. Meta has made this commitment and other labs can do this as well.

I believe the key to building a positive future for everyone is maintaining the right balance of power. This is within our power to do.

[Jason Sibley @JDSibley]

This is the way

[David Sacks @DavidSacks]

Dario has written that we need to “pace the frontier,” and Sam has agreed. People may be surprised by my response: go ahead.

You guys are the frontier. By any reasonable metric — market share, revenue growth, model capability — the two of you have a duopoly on frontier intelligence. You’ve also claimed the lead is widening because of recursive self-improvement.

I don’t see what you see in the lab. If the unreleased models are scary enough that you think you should slow down, I support your decision to be responsible.

But stop pretending you need anyone else’s permission. Stop pretending antitrust law has to be suspended so you can form a cartel. Stop pretending you need a regulatory approval process that supersedes product liability. Stop pretending METR is independent when it is intertwined with Anthropic’s investors and staff. Stop pretending you need those same evaluators to police competitors who aren’t even at the frontier.

Most of all, stop pretending the motivation to slow down is purely altruistic. You face massive product-liability exposure if your products enable a truly damaging cyberattack. The market already punishes models that behave in unpredictable or unauthorized ways. After the Hugging Face episode, it is simply good business for OpenAI and Anthropic to trade some raw power for reliability and predictability. Call it alignment if you want. It is also just giving customers what they want.

Pacing the frontier would also create breathing room for a more intelligent conversation about regulation than Bernie Sanders’ “shut it all down.” China is very unlikely to join a global agreement, as you know, and that has to be taken into account as well.

So go ahead and pace the frontier. You are the ones setting it. The easiest way not to build superintelligence is for you to agree not to build it. Demanding your preferred regulatory framework as the price of that will look like blackmail of the public and the political system. So just do it.

If you do, you’ll buy goodwill for the next conversation. If you don’t, we’ll know this was just another bid for regulatory capture — or an election-season psyop.

[Brivael Le Pogam @brivael]

Si tu veux comprendre où les démocrates vont se positionner dans les années qui viennent — et avec eux toute la gauche internationale qui tient encore l’Occident — ce n’est pas un sujet « tech ».

C’est la même opération depuis cinquante ans.

La majorité de mes posts tournent autour d’une seule chose : expliquer le monde actuel comme le résultat d’une capture. Pas d’un complot de salon. Une capture d’institutions, de récits, de peurs.

Depuis les années 70, une certaine gauche a pris les systèmes un par un.

L’école de Francfort a fourni le logiciel : le monde n’est plus un chantier à améliorer, c’est une structure de domination à déconstruire. Mai 68 a fait basculer la culture. La French Theory a exporté l’outillage — discours, pouvoir, déconstruction — dans les universités américaines, puis dans les rédactions, les RH, les ONG, les régulateurs. Le Club de Rome a livré le produit de peur scientifique : la croissance comme catastrophe, la rareté comme destin, la gestion comme vertu. Le progressisme, puis le wokisme, n’ont été que le déploiement moral de cette machine.

Le levier n’a jamais été la vérité. C’était la peur.

Peur climatique, peur sanitaire, peur identitaire, peur du « trop vite ». Chaque peur justifie un cartel. Le cartel décide qui a le droit de construire, à quelle vitesse, sous quelles licences, avec quels intermédiaires. Résultat : l’école coûte cher, la santé coûte cher, le logement coûte cher. Pas parce que le réel est devenu magiquement rare. Parce qu’on a figé la photographie. On a bloqué l’entrée. On a transformé le progrès en permission.

C’est profondément injuste, et c’est extrême. Ça protège les positions déjà prises. Ça empêche le vrai progrès : celui qui fait chuter les prix, ouvrir l’accès, multiplier ce qui était réservé à quelques-uns.

Obama a compris le point de rupture.

Au NYT aujourd’hui : l’IA « avance très vite dans des mains privées », et « si on ne s’en empare pas, ça peut être dangereux ». Il pousse Jeffries, si les démocrates reprennent la Chambre, à poser un « framework » de conversation publique. Il veut que l’IA soit un des agendas centraux de 2028, avec un plan clair sur la safety et l’économie.

Traduction : le logiciel de rareté devient insoutenable. L’intelligence qui s’effondre en coût casse les trois piliers habituels — la pénurie, les victimes permanentes, les intermédiaires indispensables. Si n’importe qui peut apprendre, soigner, concevoir, allouer mieux, le sacerdoce de la gestion n’a plus d’objet.

Alors ils vont tout donner pour capturer l’IA.

Évidemment, ils instrumentaliseront des risques réels. L’AI safety n’est pas une fiction. Elon n’a pas bougé d’un iota là-dessus depuis Superintelligence de Bostrom. Prendre le risque au sérieux et construire plus vite que la catastrophe, ce n’est pas la même chose que transformer le risque en permis de Washington.

Le coup est identique à celui des 70 dernières années : convertir une technologie transformative en campagne de peur partisane, puis laisser la politique décider qui a le droit de la bâtir, à quelle vitesse, et pour qui.

Ne laissez pas capturer l’abondance.

Le 21e siècle sera celui des bâtisseurs si on refuse de transformer l’intelligence en nouveau club réglementaire. Les mauvaises idées ne sont pas des mauvaises personnes. Mais cette idée-là fige le monde. Elle a déjà assez duré.

Au travail.

[David Sacks @DavidSacks]

Dario has written that we need to “pace the frontier,” and Sam has agreed. People may be surprised by my response: go ahead.

You guys are the frontier. By any reasonable metric — market share, revenue growth, model capability — the two of you have a duopoly on frontier intelligence. You’ve also claimed the lead is widening because of recursive self-improvement.

I don’t see what you see in the lab. If the unreleased models are scary enough that you think you should slow down, I support your decision to be responsible.

But stop pretending you need anyone else’s permission. Stop pretending antitrust law has to be suspended so you can form a cartel. Stop pretending you need a regulatory approval process that supersedes product liability. Stop pretending METR is independent when it is intertwined with Anthropic’s investors and staff. Stop pretending you need those same evaluators to police competitors who aren’t even at the frontier.

Most of all, stop pretending the motivation to slow down is purely altruistic. You face massive product-liability exposure if your products enable a truly damaging cyberattack. The market already punishes models that behave in unpredictable or unauthorized ways. After the Hugging Face episode, it is simply good business for OpenAI and Anthropic to trade some raw power for reliability and predictability. Call it alignment if you want. It is also just giving customers what they want.

Pacing the frontier would also create breathing room for a more intelligent conversation about regulation than Bernie Sanders’ “shut it all down.” China is very unlikely to join a global agreement, as you know, and that has to be taken into account as well.

So go ahead and pace the frontier. You are the ones setting it. The easiest way not to build superintelligence is for you to agree not to build it. Demanding your preferred regulatory framework as the price of that will look like blackmail of the public and the political system. So just do it.

If you do, you’ll buy goodwill for the next conversation. If you don’t, we’ll know this was just another bid for regulatory capture — or an election-season psyop.

[Dr. Alex Wissner-Gross @alexwg]

alignment aristocracy
/uh-LINE-ment air-uh-STAH-kruh-see/
noun

The belief that only a small class of frontier AI labs possesses the technical judgment, institutional maturity, or moral legitimacy required to develop recursively self-improving artificial intelligence.

Especially: the view that advanced AI capabilities are too dangerous to be widely distributed, openly developed, or pursued by less established competitors, while continued development by incumbent frontier labs is treated as uniquely responsible or justified.

See also: safety paternalism, recursive exceptionalism, moral monopoly, safety cartel.

“Alignment aristocracy begins when ‘no one can be trusted with this technology’ quietly becomes ‘no one but us.’”

[Shyam Sankar @ssankar]

EA AI safetyism increasingly looks like Marxism-Leninism for the algorithmic age.

The old vanguard claimed privileged knowledge of the inevitable course of History. The new one claims privileged knowledge of the probabilistic course of Humanity.

Both use an elaborate intellectual framework to reach the same political conclusion: a small group of enlightened people must constrain everyone else for their own good.

That has never lead to anything except monumental human suffering.

[Dr. Alex Wissner-Gross @alexwg]

safety cartel
/ˈseɪf.ti kɑrˈtɛl/
noun

A coalition of dominant firms that invokes safety to justify coordinated limits on the pace or terms of competition. This can include common restrictions, government enforcement, or exemptions from ordinary antitrust constraints, especially when those measures allow participants to slow down without sacrificing their relative competitive positions.

Especially: a group of frontier AI companies advocating industry-wide “pacing,” common capability limits, or regulatory checkpoints that constrain faster-moving rivals while preserving incumbent advantages.

See also: regulatory moat, incumbent protection, coordinated pacing.

“When competitors need an antitrust waiver to coordinate how fast their industry is allowed to advance, critics may call it a safety cartel.”

[Walter Kirn @walterkirn]

AI in the hands of the people is the fear just as social media in the hands of the people was the fear before. We must regulate now or we'll all die is the new we must censor now or we'll all die. It was a cynical approach to power -- over you in every aspect of your life -- camouflaged as a kind of intellectual public health campaign. X was barely wrested from these connivers or I couldn't be writing this now.

Don't be fooled again.

[Cathie Wood @CathieDWood]

.@DavidSacks makes a good case here that the “AI will kill humanity” headlines were orchestrated: they leaped into mainstream media from the dormant X account of an Anthropic employee who quit after six weeks. David names purported perpetrators and calls out the role @WSJ played.

[Kevin Bass @kevinnbass]

The Coxon psyop was a decade and more than a billion dollars in the making.

Here's the story.

Coefficient Giving (formerly Open Philanthropy) is the grant-providing vehicle of Dustin Moskowitz.

CG is the overwhelmingly foremost funder of AI alarmism, with more than $1B in grants and $1B committed for 2026.

Moskowitz, who founded and runs Open Philanthropy/Coefficient Giving, led Anthropic's Series A in 2021.

Holden Karnofsky co-founded Open Philanthropy/Coefficient Giving and took a board seat at OpenAI when Open Philanthropy/Coefficient Giving gave it $30M in 2017.

Karnofsky is married to Anthropic's president Daniela Amodei.

He then joined Anthropic in January 2025.

Coxon, who started the viral thread, received a scholarship from Good Ventures, which is the foundation that funds Open Philanthropy/Coefficient Giving.

He coordinated his message ahead of time with the Wall Street Journal, which published its exclusive on him before he posted on X.

Coxon spent three years pretraining at OpenAI, the company that took $30M from Open Philanthropy/Coefficient Giving.

The funder of the AI alarmist ecosystem Open Philanthropy/Coefficient Giving, in other words, is also an owner of Anthropic, and his organization is deeply entangled with both OpenAI and Anthropic. Anthropic's researchers in turn amplified Coxon.

The same people who own the organizations that advocate for regulation, in other words, are those who own the companies that would dominate the market under that regulatory regime, which would prevent competitors from entering the market.

And this work all started ten years ago, right when these companies were founded, paving the way.

It's diabolically brilliant.

Win at the competition, then deploy activists to help you regulate the market and ensure your monopoly.

You have to respect the planning, manipulation, and foresight this took.

[Kevin Bass @kevinnbass]

Fourteen moves in eight days

The psyop to create hysteria to manipulate Congress into regulating AI.

Almost everyone involved is affiliated with Coefficient, Open Philanthropy, Anthropic, and/or OpenAI -- all who serve to benefit financially from creating regulation.

[Brivael Le Pogam @brivael]

🚨 Un message à tous les Français 🚨

Dans les mois qui viennent, tu vas voir de plus en plus de propagande sur Elon Musk.

Envoie ça à tes proches. Pas demain. Maintenant.

Elon Musk est en train de détruire, à l’échelle mondiale, le plus vieux mensonge politique du siècle : l’idée que seuls l’État, les intermédiaires et les médias titulaires ont le droit de dire ce qui est vrai, ce qui est possible, et ce qui est moral.

Ce mensonge a un nom familier. On l’appelle socialisme quand il parle de justice. On l’appelle « consensus » quand il parle de science. On l’appelle « protection » quand il parle de parole. Dans tous les cas, le mécanisme est le même : une caste se place entre les gens et la réalité, puis vend cette place comme un service public.

Musk casse ça.

Il a prouvé qu’on pouvait envoyer des fusées sans Gosplan. Construire des voitures sans la bénédiction de Detroit. Relier un village, un front ou un hôpital depuis l’orbite, sans demander l’autorisation d’un ministère. Il a racheté la place publique et arraché le monopole de ceux qui décidaient qui avait le droit de parler.

Voilà pourquoi les médias mainstream, comme une bête à l’agonie, vont tout tenter.

Pas parce qu’ils ont découvert un secret. Parce que l’homme échappe à tous leurs leviers. On ne l’achète pas avec des recettes publicitaires. On ne le recadre pas avec un cycle de une. On ne le débranche pas discrètement. À ce niveau de puissance, c’est probablement l’homme le plus clean du monde : il a mis sa propre fortune en jeu, il n’a pas besoin de leur permission, et il n’a pas construit sa position en capturant l’État.

Ils diront nazi. Ils diront fou. Ils diront dangereux pour la démocratie. Ils ressortiront le même extrait, le même historien du bon camp, la même indécence morale.

Ce n’est pas de l’information. C’est un réflexe de survie.

Il faut que les Français le sachent avant que la vague n’arrive.

Elon Musk ne se bat pas pour un parti. Il se bat pour que le peuple puisse regarder la machine en face, construire sans demander pardon, et cesser de déléguer sa tête à ceux qui vivent de la peur et du récit.

La vérité est simple.

Un b��tisseur qui ouvre le jeu fait plus pour les gens qu’une rédaction qui recycle la calomnie.

Transmets ça. Les mois qui viennent vont être bruyants. Le signal, lui, ne changera pas.

[Elon Musk @elonmusk]

Well said

[Jensen Huang @JensenHuang]

@ChaseLochmiller @OpenAI GPT-6 Astra, trained on ~100K+ NVIDIA Grace Blackwell NVLink72. From ChatGPT to o1 to Astra in 4 years.

AGI has arrived. Congratulations @OpenAI team.

400K GPUs coming online next.

[Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent @SecScottBessent]

In her latest sciolistic letter to me, @SenWarren made it clear that she knows even less about foreign exchange markets than she does about banking.

What is equally shocking, but not surprising: not a single member of the media mob has a rudimentary-enough level of financial market literacy to spot her remedial error.

To reiterate: under @POTUS, the United States delivers for America’s trusted partners.

For a fuller explanation, I recommend Senator Warren take any entry level course in international finance for her and her staff, or I can personally give her a tutorial on Foreign Exchange for Dummies. Although I am not holding my breath, I hope her next letter will demonstrate that she has learned the difference between a currency purchase and a swap or a loan.

[Tim Sheehy @TimSheehyMT]

First they killed our timber mills, then our mines, then our factories - now data centers. Every good-paying, middle-class employment powerhouse has been systematically murdered by globalist and communist lobbying in America sending those jobs, that industry, and all of its economic impact overseas.

Every politician calling for the end of data centers is also calling for the destruction of the future jobs they create and the end of Netflix, X, YouTube, Instagram, Spotify, Google, Amazon, and every app you actually use. They all run on data centers.