I'm joining METR to work on more investigations like our Hugging Face report. Currently, tons of even basic information about AI development that's highly relevant to catastrophic risk isn't public. I used to be more skeptical of the value of public info, but recent events have changed my mind. Getting verified information about what's going on inside AI companies seems particularly urgent now. The limited public evidence we have seems consistent with the possibility that imminent recursive self-improvement could massively accelerate capabilities progress, which could then potentially yield extremely superhuman general capabilities within 6 months or a year. If this occurred, there would be a correspondingly large risk of worst-case outcomes. This uncertainty about extreme outcomes could be substantially resolved with more verified public information: we could either build more consensus about near-term risk or learn that such extreme outcomes are less likely in the near term. Beyond AI capabilities and takeoff, the state of public evidence is also highly limited for alignment, security, control, and risk-relevant internal processes at AI companies. This makes it hard to determine exactly how well or poorly these key areas will go in the near future. (METR plans to focus, at least initially, on just capabilities/takeoff, alignment, and control; I hope other groups cover security, internal processes, and other important areas.) While I'm no longer working at Redwood, I think the work they are doing is very important; I'm excited about Redwood's ongoing contributions to R&D on technical mitigations and better public interpretation of risk-relevant evidence.

The economics of a Neolab. A neolab is loosely defined as a startup of AI researchers who raises a lot of money pre-production to be able to finance GPU compute to take on a large AI problem. To buy 1000 GB300s or ~14 NVL72 racks will set you back $125-150M for 3yrs with 15-30% upfront. That’s about ~2-2.5MW. Thats about enough to do 10^25 flops a quarter and get to a GPT-4 level model which is 1-2 OOMs off frontier for pretraining. If you post-train on a great open source model, you have a better chance of getting to frontier. The risks are a) you need to spend millions on RL environments too and b) being lapped by another model release while being tied to a base model. For this to payback, you need to give your customers a better and ideally cheaper inference service than a base model and serve them for long enough to recoup your large investment. Even at 50% margin on inference, to recoup $10M in training means serving ~10T tokens (!) if you price like Fable / Astra given a standard cache read / input / output split ($2/M blended). And you have to justify being better than a release like Opus 5.5 which is even cheaper. Often, you end up charging your customers a huge premium in terms of platform fees and compute fees on top of pure inference. Meanwhile, every hour you’re not utilizing your GPUs you are burning money so you typically resell this compute back to a broker or run inference for open models / resell spot instances. At below a ~60% utilization on spot, you will still lose money. Add to that insane cost of talent. So what can you do with the compute? - Not play the model game at all. - Play an entirely different model game (Jev, World Labs) that if big labs played, would either a) cannibalize their business or b) be incrementally not significant revenue c) would cause too much distraction from the main main thing - Acquire a proprietary data set (Peridodic Labs) in enough volume in a domain of usefulness to eclipse frontier quality. Often happens in robotics, biology, chemistry. If you do overcome the challenge of building a model that is useful and well priced beyond big labs models, given the huge price of compute, you still need to play in an area where the revenue / compute ratio is signficant and market demand is large enough to payback your compute spend. It is a difficult game.

Smooth Operator