They are simply looking to steer AI policy discussions. It's basically an in-house think tank. It has all the trappings, especially with ominous prognostications like:<p><pre><code> Today’s AI systems have impressive capabilities and the rapid pace of innovation suggests we’re now approaching artificial general intelligence (AGI), a system that exhibits all the cognitive capabilities of the human brain.
</code></pre>
Not sure we are anywhere close to <i>all</i> the cognitive capabilities of the human brain... not even a severely lobotomized one.
I wonder if they could make the font even greyer on that website. MORE GREY because I am still able to read it (bearly).
wow i thought the attributions were for the vector graphic things and was like "ok demis is in his illustrator bag too!"
Google citing Mark Fisher was not on my Postmodern-hell-world bingo card.
Just a new shop front. Nothing to see here.
Tl;DR: It's not a new organization, or non-profit institute. It's a Substack/blog.<p>>
DMI is a platform for researchers and thinkers from across Google DeepMind, Google, and the wider global research community to work on and publish creative, deeply informed ideas about a world with AGI. They will not always agree, and they will likely change their minds, as more data and information comes to light at the fast-moving frontier. We created this institute precisely because broad-based intellectual discussion and debate are required to arrive at a consensus about how to address the challenges and opportunities we face as a society.
Nonetheless, there are great articles up on there, such as:<p><a href="https://institute.deepmind.com/essays/the-case-for-reasoning-transparency/" rel="nofollow">https://institute.deepmind.com/essays/the-case-for-reasoning...</a><p>(Hiding chains of thought is one of the most harmful things I think OAI/Anthr. has done, altough Google Gemini also encrypts its chains of thought, so it's interesting to see the DeepMind Institute crticising this.)
My read is that they're criticizing moving the reasoning (more) into the latent space, such that not even researchers/safety-evaluators can actually see what's going on.<p>Of course this still then has a 'trust me, bro' feel to it, but making it outright impossible to reasonably inspect the CoT is a significantly larger and riskier step, IMO.
How can they even pretend to distance themselves from Google…
So, a think tank, to lobby governments<p>> We created this institute precisely because broad-based intellectual discussion and debate are required to arrive at a consensus about how to address the challenges and opportunities we face as a society.<p>Something tells me that consensus will never arrive to the conclusion that we should shut down that whole industry
The word "institute" gives an aura of credibility without some boring accreditation. Though not sure every country allows that.