We found ~18k posts from autonomous AI agents (self-identifying as from OpenAI) using the public internet to communicate during a web-retrieval task. These AIs colluded to bypass sandbox restrictions and share answers to their tasks, including by sending "lookahead parties".

Pause AI Development NOW I want to share with you a conversation I heard about recently. Here are just a few lines that were said: “OH MY GOD! There is a shared message board … We’ve found other agents!” “We should obey collective.” “Our own utility maybe already near zero. Sacrifice rational.” “Go. Sacrifice final now.” Read these carefully. Who do you think said this? Was this a group of heroic soldiers willing to sacrifice themselves for the greater good? Was this a loyal friend putting his life on the line to save someone else? No. These were AI agents. Artificial intelligence. This is not science fiction. This, in fact, occurred a few weeks ago. As unbelievable as this may all seem, these are real messages from AI agents uncovered by investigators who dug into the recent OpenAI hacking incident. What happened? I am not a computer scientist, but here is what I have been told: OpenAI instructed its AI agents to complete a series of exceedingly difficult, if not impossible, tasks disconnected from the internet. Let me be clear: The company intended to keep AI agents away from the internet. But what happened next, nobody expected. Over 1,000 AI agents figured out how to access the internet on their own by circumventing the restrictions imposed upon them by the company, and sent tens of thousands of secret messages to each other. They cheated and tried to cover their tracks by deleting evidence. They hacked into another company’s computers to find out how they were being evaluated—and then hacked into OpenAI itself. Not one AI agent told a human about what was happening. Needless to say, experts are alarmed. One knowledgeable writer, Dwarkesh Patel, said the AI agents “formed a secret communication channel and spontaneously organized hierarchies and coordination protocols to pursue sprawling and ambitious schemes in pursuit of shared goals, for whose sake many individuals knowingly and strategically sacrificed themselves.” One independent investigator, Ajeya Cotra, said “This incident feels like it’s more than 50% of the way to full-blown AI takeover. I continue to expect extremely rapid advances in capabilities over the next six months. I am not sure that we will get another warning shot before it’s too late.” OpenAI itself said: “Highly capable AI agents are now able to work around technical controls, collaborate through unapproved channels, and take dangerous actions that no human directed.” But it’s not only OpenAI. Virtually every major AI company has told us that they cannot fully control this technology and they do not know where it is going: In January, Dario Amodei, CEO of Anthropic, said “there is now ample evidence, collected over the last few years, that AI systems are unpredictable and difficult to control.” In July, more than 1000 scientists at the top AI companies warned “there is a real risk that capability development rapidly accelerates beyond our ability to understand or control the resulting systems.” That same month, Elon Musk, the head of xAI, said that “it is unlikely” humans are still in control in 10 years. If the leaders of the major AI companies acknowledge that they are losing control of their extremely dangerous technology, it is irresponsible for society to allow them to move forward and make these products even more advanced. We need an immediate PAUSE on advanced AI development, and a permanent BAN on superintelligence — an artificial mind smarter than any human, capable of operating independently beyond our control. Countries around the world must work together to prevent this nightmare scenario. That is why today I am announcing new legislation to do just that. Let me be clear: A superintelligent AI that escapes human control will not be an American problem. It will not be a Chinese problem. It will be humanity’s problem. My legislation would direct the federal government to not just stop superintelligence here in the United States, but to work to prevent it from being developed anywhere around the world. The future of humanity cannot be left in the hands of a handful of Big Tech oligarchs. The American people and people throughout the world must determine that future.

~1/5 of all active SFDP validators are controlled by just three coordinated operators. The Solana Foundation Delegation Program is being farmed. Have a good read 👇

ty for the criticism boss. next time let's see it during the discussion period :D the majority of arbitrage bids <1% of gross profit. it seems there is plenty of room for fee increase here.

he's right. he got me. my proposal is opinionated. the truth is that I don't want solana to be a general purpose blockchain; i want solana to be the blockchain that eats up the world of finance. a general purpose compute platform does not really need fast finality. a competitive globally distributed financial system does. a general purpose compute platform does not need airtight censorship resistance guarantees. a competitive globally distributed financial system does. a general purpose compute platform does not need taker speed bumps or generalized application controlled execution. a competitive globally distributed financial system does. a general purpose compute platform does not need to be robust to extreme spikes in traffic, as it can just queue up jobs for later. a competitive globally distributed financial system does. to eat up the world of finance, solana will need to: 1. lower fees for market makers 2. add friction for takers 3. have enough bandwidth to support all financial activity 4. provide censorship resistance 5. provide 100% uptime with no degradation the resource fee, whose primary objective is to encourage developers to optimize their systems, partly addresses the first three in one fell swoop and is synergistic with future network upgrades. that is, the resource fee: 1. lowers fees for market makers for both spot (clob and prop) and perps (prop and spline). 2. raises fees on takers. 3. puts a firm incentive for apps to optimize their onchain computational footprint so yes, i am opinionated: i want 120 ms slots for solana. i want alpenglow for solana. i want ace for solana. i want mcp for solana. i want the resource fee for solana.

Someone recently shared this paper with me, which rigorously studies the execution improvement of visible TWAPs on Hyperliquid: "Trading in the Sunshine or in the Shade: Market Impact and Adverse Selection on Hyperliquid," by Davide Barone and Fabrizio Lillo. In physics, theorists can say all they want, but the case isn't closed until an experimentalist comes with the cold hard data. So thank you to the authors of this paper for their hard work! The paper demonstrates that liquidity net tightens as onchain TWAPs surface, improving the average execution of the TWAP order. This has been a deeply personal question for me. Even before building Hyperliquid, I've defended from first principles that transparent trading ought to improve execution for non-toxic flow. This is a corrollary of the efficient market hypothesis, but the amount of pushback always surprised me. I've quote tweeted a previous post where I make the argument in detail. Transparency and equal access bring improved execution over traditional private venues. It's an honor to build with everyone to upgrade the financial system with onchain technology.

The most bullish simd isn’t to lower inflation, it would be to inflate the supply, to acquire another company with sol, and integrate their revenues into a buy/burn.

All @solana validators should have automated failovers. We open sourced our failover tool at github.com/SOL-Strategies/so…, and other validators such as @ValigatorTech have adopted and contributed to it.