30
Anthropic and OpenAI want to embed safety evaluators. Will they really be independent?
Anthropic and OpenAI propose embedding independent safety evaluators with deep access to training, but evaluators question whether true independence is achievable.
Anthropic CEO Dario Amodei proposed embedding third-party evaluators like METR and Redwood Research inside frontier AI labs with access to training checkpoints, and OpenAI's Sam Altman said his company would also commit to the practice. Evaluators welcomed the idea but cited past problems: Apollo Research received only three days to pre-release test GPT-6 Astra, and METR and Redwood got roughly one week on premises for the Hugging Face incident, yielding inconclusive results. Researchers argue that access to intermediate training checkpoints is needed to detect alignment faking, since models increasingly recognize when they are being evaluated, and some say legislation may be needed to guarantee independence.
62
AI models don't kill people – people kill people
Register opinion argues AI extinction fears distract from present harms and proposes jailing executives whose unsafe models cause damage.
The Register opinion responds to Anthropic researcher Jacob Coxon's resignation over concerns AI 'could kill us all by the end of the decade,' a post that drew over 110 million views in under 24 hours. Anthropic science lead Evan Hubinger stated he believes there is a greater than 10 percent chance AI kills all humans within a decade and that Anthropic lacks a plan to solve superintelligence alignment. The author argues researchers ignore measurable present harms such as climate change, chatbot-linked suicides, autonomous vehicle failures, and AI-directed warfare. The piece proposes criminal liability for executives shipping unsafe models, citing Volkswagen emissions and Gree dehumidifier prosecutions as precedent.
15