When I posted this in March, many people pointed out that it did not include the labor impact of robotic systems combined with language models. Anthropic updated the chart in a report released this morning.

When I joined OpenAI back in 2019, the world only knew of GPT-2: a new transformer model that produced surprisingly coherent, if factually incorrect and poetically dreamlike, text. From where I stood then, having messed around with training Markov chains and Karpathy's 2015 char-rnn model in my spare time during college, it was immediately clear that GPT-2, if scaled up, would be a revolution. I envisioned humanity tapping into the intelligence of text in order to automate CAD for mechanical engineering, to write websites and code and math proofs, to design new proteins, and to understand and analyze the human genome. I remember how astonished I was the first time I saw that GPT-3 could output a syntactically valid Python function. How simple that seems now! What followed from there has been a complete whirlwind of seven years, an adventure that has been the privilege of a lifetime. I will never forget getting to learn so much from all of my colleagues, from the GPT-3 API launch to the discovery of multimodal neurons in CLIP; from the DALL·E 1 paper to shipping a product for DALL·E 2; from the Codex Challenge (a live coding contest celebrating the launch of our very first ever “Codex” model in 2021) to, now, Codex itself in 2026; presenting GPT-4 to Bill Gates in 2022, and shipping the exam evals for its 2023 release; the launch of ChatGPT; and so much more. It’s been an incredible honor to have a front-row seat to this rocketship as we brought an oracle to the pockets of a billion people. Working with everyone at OpenAI has been such an honor, and I am so proud of what we have accomplished: massively empowering humans everywhere in their ability to access knowledge and to extend their own agency. As the tools I once dreamt of now exist, it’s time for me to step back from work and focus on the other adventure of a lifetime: building a family with @MartinShkreli. With a now-1-year-old son to raise, and our daughter coming soon this February, Martin and I are thrilled to start this new chapter. I would like to thank everyone who believed in me — @gdb, @sama, and others — for giving me the opportunity to participate in this wild ride. Through the years’ many ups and downs, OpenAI has always been there for me, and it has been a tremendous gift to be able to contribute. The journey isn't done, and I look forward to seeing what everyone creates in the years ahead — to the future!

I deeply respect anyone who can update their views in the face of new evidence. The last four years have really taught me how rare it is for someone to be able to publicly change their mind.

Scooplet: Former senior Trump official Thomas Lind, a key architect of the administration's AI framework executive order, joined OpenAI's national security team this week. Lind left the White House's Office of the National Cyber Director in June. theinformation.com/articles/…

From the blog: 'AI chips shipped through 2027 could run tens to hundreds of millions of concurrent frontier-model agents. Running nonstop, these agents would supply as many weekly working hours as about 140–720 million full-time employees. More efficient models could potentially support billions of agents on the same hardware. Applying DeepSeek V4 Pro serving benchmarks to the projected hardware supply yields approximately 1.9 billion concurrent agents supplying as many weekly working hours as 8 billion people each working 40 hours.

META has parted ways with Virtue AI.

I really don't like getting into online debates; and Anil is an excellent scientist. However, nobody can dictate that the probability of AI being conscious is "vanishingly unlikely." That is not a scientific claim grounded in any facts that could allow such a probabilistically confident assessment. I'm struggling more and more with the ardent theory-induced blindness entrenched in both camps: Those that religiously believe AI is conscious and those that religiously believe it is not. If you lean above 80% confidence in either direction, you are doing so on faith. Faith is fine, even good, but it does not permit you to stand on scientific authority and claim that you know which side is correct; and that therefore the other side is "dangerous". That is, in fact, the dangerous move. The only scientifically legitimate stance regarding AI consciousness right now is one of tremendous epistemic humility, ideally curiousity, and a heartfelt effort to safeguard against extremism—by revealing the dogmatic and unscientific views on both sides. Yet, we do need to deal with the consequences of both views being inevitably prevalent in a world of 8 billion. Anil overweights the potentially damaging consequences of over-attributing consciousness, compared to those of under-attribution. This is unscientific. Both have tremendous risks. The fact that Anthropic is looking for advice from religious leaders is a sign of maturity, not "deeply disturbing". And sharing their honest views with those leaders is perfectly, authentically, natural. I also reject the view that religious leaders are children to be coddled for fear of breaking all their virtues in light of a 5-star hotel and a nice meal. They are the ones who should be insulted by this article. There is wisdom in the middle-way.

There were a lot of things that only worked because there's a limit to the rate at which humans can operate. We're about to find out what all of them are, as they break.