anaguma's Shortform

anaguma

This is a special post for quick takes by anaguma. Only they can create top-level comments. Comments here also appear on the Quick Takes page and All Posts page.

SSI announced that they are scaling up their work. Surprisingly, they also shared some of their research with Nvidia. Perhaps this means they will release a product after all.

Ilya Sutskever’s Safe Superintelligence Inc. and NVIDIA Announce Long-Term Strategic Partnership
Access to NVIDIA’s Best-in-Class Vera Rubin Systems Expands SSI’s Compute by an Order of Magnitude

SANTA CLARA, Calif. and PALO ALTO, Calif., July 27, 2026 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) -- Safe Superintelligence Inc. (SSI) and NVIDIA today announced a long-term partnership to rapidly accelerate SSI’s strategic growth. NVIDIA has additionally made an investment in SSI.
For SSI, NVIDIA’s substantial investment combined with access to the next-generation, best-in-class NVIDIA Vera Rubin platform will allow SSI to increase its compute by an order of magnitude. The two companies will also collaborate on the technical advancement of NVIDIA’s current and future compute platforms, leveraging SSI’s unique insights into the future of AI.
For the last two years, SSI has been quietly advancing a new research direction to unlock a powerful and robustly aligned artificial intelligence. NVIDIA entered this partnership to accelerate SSI’s next stage of growth after obtaining rare access into the company’s closely guarded research.
“Ilya has pioneered fundamental breakthroughs at the foundation of modern AI, beginning with AlexNet,” said Jensen Huang, founder and CEO of NVIDIA. “We are excited to see what new breakthroughs SSI will discover powered by our Vera Rubin platform.”
“We have research that is worthy of scaling up, and having access to a big NVIDIA computer will let us do so,” said Ilya Sutskever, cofounder and CEO of SSI. “We’re incredibly proud to be partnering with Jensen and the NVIDIA team, and we are confident that our big bet on the Vera Rubin platform will take us to the next level.”

7RHollerith3mo

I think it is important in these discussions of which AI lab CEO might be better than which other AI lab CEO to occasionally remind the reader that many of us believe that it is very unlikely that humanity survives unless all of the AI labs (definitely to include SSI) are dissolved and their employees prohibited from continuing the work elsewhere till the knowledge accumulates about how to proceed safely, which will probably take at least a few decades (and is helped very little by massive amounts of computing power). Also, there is a real upper bound on how competent a person can be who decided (even in the 1980s or 1990s) to devote his career to advancing AI capabilities and who continued to think such a career was a good idea as his brain matured. The most competent among us IMHO avoided that career entirely or left it in their 20s. The comment I'm replying to and other comments in this section presuppose that it is important which AI lab CEOs we put our hope in. A presupposition or unstated assumption will tend to have a strong effect on the reader if it is present in many comments unless it is explicitly contradicted at regular intervals like I am doing now. Of course, I don't expect everyone to agree with me, and I'm not trying to discourage long discussions on this site of specific AI lab CEOs or researchers.

6gjm3mo

It feels to me as if we just had the following discussion: * Selfmaker662: There's no difference between A, B, and C. * other people: <downvotes Selfmaker662> * Selfmaker662: Huh, why did that happen? * gjm: Well, part of it might be that you said there's no difference between A, B, and C, but here's what looks like an important way in which A is different from B and C. * RHollerith: Yeah, but the only important thing is that A, B, and C are all really bad. You may well be right that all the AI lab CEOs are evil and stupid and their labs should be shut down. But so what? The question was "what might people not have liked about Selfmaker662's comment?", and part of my answer was "the claim that there's no difference between one AI lab CEO and another", and I think some people might have thought that was wrong even if in fact all AI lab CEOs are evil and stupid. And I also think that AI lab CEOs are not all equally evil and stupid. And also that the world is not made a better place by insisting that every discussion that mentions AI lab CEOs must be punctuated by reminders that they are all evil and stupid. (And, for what it's worth: no, I absolutely do not think that we should be "putting our hope in" any AI lab CEO. I'm not sure that's even a meaningful thing to say; what exactly would I be doing if I "put my hope in", say, Dario Amodei? and how would it be different from what I would be doing if I "put my hope in" Ilya Sutskever instead?)

Good points. My comment didn't really improve anything.