Research transparency beats third-party evals for pacing the frontier, researcher argues
1a3orn · x · 2026-09-13
Reacting to proposals (incl. Dario's) to pace frontier development via third-party evals, user 1a3orn argues "research transparency" would work better: (1) it compresses frontier margins less, (2) it yields 1-2 orders of magnitude more alignment science, and (3) it is less susceptible to capture by labs.
A technical governance debate on what mechanism should actually slow the frontier.
More from Safety
- Coefficient Giving hires 10+ grantmakers, plans $1B for AI safety in 2026 — NathanpmYoung · 2026-09-13
- GLM 5.2 analyzed the OpenAI Hugging Face attack because "safe" models refused — TheZachMueller · 2026-09-13
- Dario Amodei's new essay urges pacing AI frontier, pledges permanent third-party access — dhadfieldmenell · 2026-09-13
- UK parliament hears warnings AI could kill all humans within a decade, with >10% risk cited — connoraxiotes · 2026-09-13
- METR hiring AI safety evaluators with salaries up to $687K, matching top labs — chrisrohlf · 2026-09-13
- Regulation is coming for open and closed AI models alike — the question is proactive or reactive — benjamin_warner · 2026-09-13