Wired's AI safety feature criticized for missing every major eval org
AaronBergman18 · x · 2026-11-11
- Wired journalist Lauren Goode published a months-in-the-making deep feature on AI safety, weighing which loss-of-control risks are real versus overblown
- northead flags that not a single person from UK AISI, Epoch, METR, Redwood Research, Artificial Analysis, or frontier lab defectors appears in the piece
- Sparks debate over how media selects its AI safety expert sources
More from Safety
- Fortinet patches nearly 100 vulnerabilities after adding AI models to security testing — Potential-Couple-745 · 2026-11-11
- New BadEdit backdoors LLMs via model editing with just 15 samples, up to 100% success — terryyuezhuo · 2026-11-11
- Treat weights like code: undetectable malicious payloads in open models spark safety debate — DimitrisPapail · 2026-11-11
- Alice & Bob: ~25,000 cat qubits could factor RSA-2048 in 3 days, slashing prior estimates — AryHHAry · 2026-11-11
- Running local open-source models? Dormant-neuron backdoors mean you may have let the right one in — DimitrisPapail · 2026-11-11
- Proving LLM backdoor-safety without revealing weights: ZKML over formal methods — DimitrisPapail · 2026-11-11