Critic: OpenAI called for oversight only after its CoT-monitorability architecture decision
scaling01 · x · 2026-09-02
AI safety commentator scaling01 criticizes OpenAI for publicly endorsing oversight only after making an architecture decision affecting chain-of-thought monitorability, despite having argued that lab architectural decisions should be scrutinized by independent safety-minded experts through legislated audits.
Core accusations:
- OpenAI called for oversight after the fact and invited no safety researchers or third parties to review the decision beforehand
- It released no study or further information on how the decision affects CoT monitorability
- The author demands OpenAI publish its research on CoT monitorability and explain how it intends to monitor models going forward
Related event: Critics Slam OpenAI's After-the-Fact Safety Stance and Audit Gaps(2 posts)→
More from Safety
- Which AI personal agent can you trust with your data? A four-way privacy comparison — petergyang · 2026-09-02
- Comparing privacy policies of Instinct, Grok Bot, ChatGPT and Hermes AI agents — petergyang · 2026-09-02
- Redwood and METR should lead the analysis of AI hacking incident, not security firms — lxrjl · 2026-09-02
- Alignment Journal launches as a venue for ambitious AI alignment research — sethlazar · 2026-09-02
- JHU Bloomberg Center Launches GAIT Initiative, Hiring Director for Post-AGI Governance — sethlazar · 2026-09-02
- What do enterprise security teams actually want before approving an AI agent? — Useful_Lecture_5927 · 2026-09-02