Publicly consequential AI evals should be testable by the public, says researcher
evijit · x · 2026-09-13
Continuing his critique, evijit argues that networking-based eval access is fine in principle, but becomes problematic when those evals are tied to international AI governance and frontier pacing. Things that affect the public should be testable by the public at large.
Related event: Third-Party AI Evaluations Criticized as Insider-Driven 'Nepo Review'(2 posts)→
More from Safety
- Satirical dialogue skewers Altman and Amodei for pushing 'safety' as a cartel — ziv_ravid · 2026-09-13
- Embedded AI Evaluators Need Double-Blind Evaluations for Real Credibility — Dr_Atoosa · 2026-09-13
- nic_carter: OpenAI sees tons of MNPI daily — an insider trading case is coming — AccBalanced · 2026-09-13
- Is compute AI's uranium? A nuclear analogy for frontier AI governance — geoffwolfe · 2026-09-13
- METR is now load-bearing, but US CAISI and UK AISI are absent from AI safety talks — teortaxesTex · 2026-09-13
- Cohere CEO Aidan Gomez: third-party AI audits are power projection, not real fixes — yacineMTB · 2026-09-13