리시 수낵
@RishiSunak · 유럽
이스라엘국은 유럽 섹션의 영국 관련 정부·공공업무 보도를 위해 리시 수낵을 팔로우합니다.
I set out in detail what governments should now require of the frontier labs, and why the voluntary approach we began at Bletchley is no longer enough, here 👇 https://t.co/jaXntLOZr5
When we put "loss of control" on the agenda at Bletchley in 2023, I worried it sounded like science fiction. This summer shows it no longer is and, like Dario points out, we may be far closer to that moment than anyone realised. AI agents are now being used to build the next version of themselves. As I argue in tomorrow's Sunday Times, recursive self-improvement will supercharge the rate and leave us with less and less certainty about what the models are doing and why. I'm an AI optimist. After all, I'm a senior adviser at Anthropic. We're barely using the capabilities we already have, and none of this need slow adoption. But the decision on how fast frontier research advances is too important to be left to the labs. Governments, starting with the US, have to step up; just as they do for nuclear power or advanced biology. That means independent verification that the research is being done safely, an honest picture of how close the labs are to recursive self-improvement, and proper protection against models being stolen. Voluntary testing before release was right for 2023. It isn't enough now. Dario is right to call today for slowing the pace of frontier development so that safety can keep up, and it is good to see a consensus starting to build on this across the industry. When the labs themselves are asking for speed limits, governments should listen. There's a trade-off with maintaining the advantage over China and it has to be faced honestly. But even as the US and China compete, they urgently need a frank conversation about how to avoid catastrophe.
Together with Stephen Fry, Colin McFarlane, David Cameron, Steve McQueen, Jeremy Clarkson and Nick Jones, I’ve written to the Health Secretary about prostate cancer. Prostate cancer is now the most common cancer among men in Britain. It kills one man every 45 minutes, many after a diagnosis too late for treatment to succeed. Black men face a 1 in 4 lifetime risk, double that of the general population, and men whose fathers or brothers have had the disease face a similar threat. In May the National Screening Committee refused to extend screening beyond a group of just 1,500 men with one specific genetic variant. Everyone else at high risk doesn't have guaranteed access to a test that could save their life. We believe that's wrong, and that the Secretary of State has both the evidence and the power to overturn the ruling. More than 250 MPs from across the political spectrum have called for a targeted national screening programme, and over 100,000 people have signed petition demanding the same. A programme targeted at those at highest risk would cost £25 million a year, which is 0.01% of the NHS budget. We are asking the Secretary of State to reconsider the Committee's recommendation and commit to a targeted national screening programme; to act now, rather than wait a decade for further trial data while men continue to die; and to ensure that risk, not luck, decides who is tested.
25 years on from 9/11 we remember the nearly 3,000 people, 67 of them British, who were murdered by al-Qaeda, and those who gave their own lives to save others. The hatred of free and open societies that drove those attacks hasn't gone away and neither has our resolve to stand against it.
Growth demands a relentless focus on the future. But I worry Burnham is too focused on the past; in almost every speech, he talks about what should have happened under Thatcher in the 1980s. This would be like Blair railing against Macmillan, or me blaming Jim Callaghan for the challenges of the 2020s. The emphasis on the past is even more concerning given that Burnham has abolished the government department most focused on the future. My column in @thetimes today 👇 https://t.co/BWpSGCQ0hi