AI evals shouldn't be done by underpaid students but by stable, tenured research staff
tallinzen · x · 2026-09-17
Continuing the discussion: the author agrees it doesn't make sense for AI evals to be done by underpaid students who will soon be job-hunting; evals should be run by people with stable, well-paid staff positions, essentially tenured research scientists, to reduce incentive distortions.
Related event: Scholars debate who should run independent AI model evaluations(3 posts)→
More from Safety
- Google paper maps AI economic shock policies, identifies "least-regret" sequence — HarrySurden · 2026-09-17
- Frustrated with 'us vs them' AI safety discourse, researcher maps the real axes of disagreement — xuanalogue · 2026-09-17
- Yudkowsky: the part of an AI that talks to you doesn't control the part that acts — LessWrong 精选 · 2026-09-17
- METR's closeness to Anthropic argues for diverse third-party AI evaluators — soumitrashukla9 · 2026-09-17
- panickssery: crippling AI regulation worries me more than falling behind China — panickssery · 2026-09-17
- OpenAI's Chris Lehane Backs FRONTIER Act's Independent Verification Organizations (IVOs) — ghadfield · 2026-09-17