AI safety researcher pushes back: academia does make sense as a model evaluator
dhadfieldmenell · x · 2026-09-13
Responding to Nathan Lambert's claim that academia is a poor fit as an independent AI evaluator, Dylan Hadfield-Menell argues that running evaluations on private models and data offers clear benefits to researchers, even with limits on sharing results.
He notes that evaluating and auditing frontier systems aligns directly with academics' stated goals, and that many scholars already spend 20% of their time in industry, channeling those insights into public-facing lab research. The core tension is incentives: Lambert sees academics' drive to publish as incompatible with handling private information, while Hadfield-Menell sees access to private model data as worth that trade-off, with pros and cons across a range of independent evaluators.
More from Safety
- Critics ask whether METR-style review agencies create GFC-like rubber-stamp incentives — gleech · 2026-09-14
- Polymarket misquotes Dario Amodei: he said joint oversight, not handing over Anthropic — austinc3301 · 2026-09-14
- US schools warn of viral AI 'Cat in the Hat' threat trend; teens arrested — nordicinst · 2026-09-14
- Investor Alsop: AI's real existential risk is cybersecurity, not doom narratives — StewartalsopIII · 2026-09-14
- Independence is a mechanism and institution design problem, not just competence — _onionesque · 2026-09-14
- Yoav Artzi on OpenAI's Black Hat talk: "the level of negligence is insane" — yoavartzi · 2026-09-14