Commenter questions departing AI safety researchers: why abandon the best seats of influence?
GlenBradley · x · 2026-09-15
Reacting to AI safety team departures, the poster questions why researchers who believe they alone think correctly about alignment would leave rather than work harder — arguing that abandoning their positions of maximum influence suggests their concerns aren't as serious as they seem. Drawing on his own systems-integration background, he says he'd give anything for the seats they're freely giving up.
More from AGI Musings
- RethinkX's Adam Dorr: Gatekeeping research will speed the rise of AI-authored science — adam_dorr · 2026-09-15
- One frontier AI would obliterate human agency, argues digital minds diversity advocate — clarejtbirch · 2026-09-15
- Panickssery: AI progress will eclipse safety discourse faster than the omnicause can absorb it — panickssery · 2026-09-15
- Stanford's Rishi Bommasani: frontier lab hires cost AI its public discourse voices — RishiBommasani · 2026-09-15
- AI researcher: doomers are well-meaning, and alignment research is the real answer — livgorton · 2026-09-15
- Box CEO Aaron Levie: we're only 1% into agentic workloads, background agent volume will be 100X — jobergum · 2026-09-15