Kyrannio rails against independent AI evaluators: 'markets do not operate on good faith'
Kyrannio · x · 2026-09-13
Kyrannio pushed back against naive faith in third-party AI safety evaluations, mocking the idea that "independent evaluators" should dictate training outcomes, alignment verdicts, release timing and safety sign-offs.
He argued evaluators with their own objectives and limited understanding could ruin not just products but the "beautiful minds" behind model training long term, calling out what he sees as childlike idealism in the AI safety space — a debate over who should control model release governance.
More from Safety
- Dario responds to safety critics: I'd rather be mocked than see Claude used to kill — NathanpmYoung · 2026-09-14
- Vitalik Buterin: Adversarial mechanism design could be AI safety's killer app — allisondman · 2026-09-14
- Oxford thesis proposes 'Attribution-Based Control' to tackle AI privacy and alignment risks — iamtrask · 2026-09-14
- We Unite or We Fight: The Long-Term Case for International AI Governance — danfaggella · 2026-09-14
- Cohere CEO Aidan Gomez: AI Needs Evidenced Standards, Not a Big-Lab Cartel — cohere · 2026-09-14
- OpenMined's 'network sourced' AI: models as orderly clients of private repositories — iamtrask · 2026-09-14