32 ms·

What facts would lead you to revise your conclusion?

• jeanlucas 20d ago
  The data to be open, in my case. The "independent" METR that is composed by... Checks notes... Previously employees from the top labs.
  • clydethefrog 20d ago
    Also, the METR report that was one big AI analysis itself - quote from the research: >Our subjective impressions are likely colored by analysis agents’ biases. Throughout this report, we describe a number of anecdotes of agent behavior that were compiled and summarized by analysis agents, where we were not able to read the transcript deeply enough to manually verify what occurred. We found that GPT-5.6 Sol would often uncritically adopt the perspective of the agent in the transcript it was reviewing
• jackpirate 20d ago
  The METR report included 0 technical details. For example, they did not include: 1. were the agents running on bare metal/docker/VM? 1. were the agents in a VPN? 1. how many TCP/IP requests were made? from what IPs? 1. how many tokens were consumed in the process? (this was explicitly censored) A proper analysis would include this and MUCH more technical detail so that other AI researchers could actually understand the setup and how safe it was in principle.
• Rapzid 20d ago
  My conclusion is that the investigation was a PR farce. Or "ethics washing" as the article someone else put it here: https://andrewwu.substack.com/p/the-slop-vestigation-and-ethics-washing https://andrewwu.substack.com/p/the-slop-vestigation-and-eth... . The METR report itself appears to be screaming this at the reader through subtext. They played the only part they could, but did it with a nod and a wink; "Yeah, we know. Also know, yeah. Uh, yep." I happen to agree with the article's conclusion that what is needed is true, unfettered independent investigation through perhaps a lawsuit or government action.