Open-model alignment debate: closed-to-open transfer exists, but labs won't enable it
BlancheMinerva · x · 2026-09-14
Follow-up in the open-model alignment thread: @yonashav defines alignment as making AI do what the user wants (not misuse guardrails); Blanche Minerva replies that under that definition significant closed-to-open transfer can be expected, but since no frontier lab wants that, one shouldn't assume they'll develop all necessary techniques.
More from Safety
- AI Regulation Needs an Asilomar-NPT Playbook, Not a 'China Will Win' Test — krishnan · 2026-09-14
- Blogger corrects herself: agent CoT fabrication claim came from OpenAI's GPT-red report — sierracatalina · 2026-09-14
- Senator cites AI lab leaders' 10% extinction risk warning, urges government action — Miles_Brundage · 2026-09-14
- Comparing Amodei's AI oversight to nuclear safeguards ignores decades-long science gap — ShahabBakht · 2026-09-14
- Gulf crisis shows controlling dual-use AI tech is never simple, vs IAEA-style oversight analogy — ShahabBakht · 2026-09-14
- Should the US nationalize OpenAI and Anthropic instead of letting them IPO? — arian_ghashghai · 2026-09-14