Running list of conjectures about neural networks 📜:

"We currently lack the basic prerequisites needed to have a conversation about safety standards: a shared understanding of the current state of loss-of-control risk, what companies are currently doing or not doing to try to manage it, and how well these efforts do or don’t work."

Preventing loss of control is an open scientific problem. Science requires sharing and debating evidence in public. We can't agree on safety standards unless companies and third-party evaluators publish far more concrete evidence about risk. planned-obsolescence.org/p/e…

@eliebakouch maybe of interest to you

“Welcome to the new world of super intelligence!”

The METR team is really incredible

I personally think it’s important that independent groups (from all backgrounds) get access to inform the public about what’s going on without it being filtered through layers of PR or with things being swept under the rug.

I don’t think that embedding evaluators at AI companies will be sufficient to give the public the visibility or assurance it deserves right now. But if we want to scale embedded evaluations and rely on them down the line, I definitely want them to be transparent.

Today, more than 100 leading AI experts endorsed a set of minimum requirements to take seriously AI companies' recent call to embed external evaluators. These evaluators need to be genuinely independent, transparent, and represent a range of expertise areas. They also need to be guaranteed employee-level access and to be protected from retaliation for findings that make companies look bad. We welcome model developers’ recent calls for independent oversight, but it’s what they do next that matters. The labs must be accountable for ensuring these requirements are met, so that the public can have faith in the process and the outcomes. Over the past week, the AI community has debated the appropriate role of external evaluation, including who should do it and on what terms. We may not agree on everything, but there is a lot of common ground. To make embedded evaluations credible, more than 100 experts with varying backgrounds and ideas about AI risk agree in today’s letter that frontier AI developers should: 1. Guarantee embedded evaluators full editorial independence and mitigate conflicts of interest 2. Rely on multiple evaluators with differing viewpoints and areas of expertise 3. Publicly document the terms under which evaluators operate, as well as facilitating permissive publication of methods and findings 4. Shield evaluators from retaliation 5. Grant access equivalent to that of highly privileged employees There is a thriving and growing ecosystem of independent AI evaluators who are advancing this science every day – but we need aligned standards, guaranteed protections, and independent funding. That’s why we created the AI Evaluator Forum. Today we are entering our next phase. We’re launching an open call for new members, collaborators, and independent funding sources to help evaluators meet this moment and demand accountability from developers. Join us in building the evaluator ecosystem. See the public letter here: aievaluatorforum.org/initiat… Learn more at aievaluatorforum.org/path-ah…

Won't speak on behalf of METR, but on a personal basis I'll say: none of the work that we've done so far passes my bar for an "audit" of an AI company or its systems, and was definitely not "regulation" in any meaningful sense (whether bank examiner-like or otherwise).

My name is Chris Painter, and I'm the President of METR (Model Evaluation and Threat Research). I know we've made a lot of new friends on the internet the last couple of days, so I thought I'd take this chance to re-up what we do and why. Our work is aimed at making sure that if AI really were autonomous, difficult to steer, and close to "going rogue," the public would find out. If evidence exists inside of an AI company that it’s close to losing control of AI, we want to make sure that information gets shared with the rest of the world, including governments and the public outside the company’s walls. This is what we've been focused on since 2022, and over the years we've worked with OpenAI, Anthropic, Google DeepMind, Meta, Amazon, and others on piloting third-party assessments and investigations of this type. We don’t have some private room where we rubber stamp things as “safe” or not. We have had a track record of publishing results on AI that don't cleanly map onto the "doomer" or "accelerationist" labels, and we put in effort to hire people with competing views on AI. We’ve been cited for having found some of the strongest evidence that AI capabilities are improving rapidly (our work measuring AI “time horizons”) while also presenting some of the strongest evidence that, at various points, AI’s capability may be overstated (some might remember our study showing that early 2025 software engineers were actually being slowed when they thought they were being sped up). METR is funded by donations. We don't accept money from frontier AI companies. They haven't paid us for our work, and we don't accept donations from them or their employees. As we’ve shared previously, multiple frontier AI companies currently provide us with free access to their models in order to perform our evaluations, research, and engineering. Our funding intentionally comes from a wide range of donors, which we’ve shared on our website. Today, when an AI company works with any third-party evaluator or external testing organization (of which there are and should be many), it's entirely voluntary. This often involves NDAs and redactions. To counterbalance this, we have a principle that when we enter into a contract with a company, we try to retain the right to tell the public the terms of the contract we signed, and characterize the nature of redactions that the company chose to make. For example, the report from our independent investigation of the OpenAI-HuggingFace incident included that information. Public disclosure is also a big part of our COI policy (linked on our website). That’s not to say our reports are adequate as oversight. We’re just one organization (among many doing great work), working in a voluntary setup, trying to get good evidence to the public and the world about AI, letting the facts fall where they may.