Nathan Lambert

As AI became more powerful, it was inevitable that a different, growing group would start to take AI safety more seriously – what we did not know ahead of time, is which set of views they latched onto. A lot in the AI world is about to change due to this.

Then, some basic factors of human nature apply, with the most crucial being that fear sells. Fear is the simplest story, the one people cannot look away from. What looked like a fairly innocuous event – another AI researcher quitting citing safety risks – landed into a very different environment and it caught like wildfire. The discussion of existential risk, mass extinction, and the trajectory of AI has traveled further than even the most seasoned AI commentariat would ever predict.

From my earlier post on the HuggingFace-OpenAI incident, Lessons from the hacks : Frontier labs do not seem like they’re watching the models closely enough, due to a general frenetic competitive environment & current SF culture From OpenAI’s own retrospective, the misaligned model behavior was unfolding over months, and in some cases OpenAI did not know about the hacks for ~weeks. The time to response is too long and I do not think this is an OpenAI only characteristic – rather it is that the frontier labs continually seem underwater in the amount of work they feel like they should do. I am not optimistic in the long-term that the labs change a sufficient amount here to meaningfully mitigate this type of oversight risk in the future. Yes, it is very likely that OpenAI is putting a ton into understanding this – and delayed their latest models to make sure they get it right – but the financial pressure to grow revenue or risk the companies’ long-term balance sheets makes me think it wil