3 ms·

I just don't understand how you've come to this conclusion. The intended and common sense interpretation of "pacing the frontier" is precisely that we should no

I just don't understand how you've come to this conclusion. The intended and common sense interpretation of "pacing the frontier" is precisely that we should not release models that are fundamentally dangerous; the frontier labs believe that government intervention is required to prevent such models from being released, and to give them the freedom of action to coordinate against it. Why do you think it's a way to externalize the risk or remain totally in control of the benefits?

filearts 12d ago
Let's say that we are "pacing the frontier", and an approved model goes and causes billions of damage, or worse, loss of life. The auditor signed off on the model, so who is to blame? Who put their akin in the game? METR did. The public did. But it seems like the lab has crafted a system in which they remain blameless. The calculus of risk is fundamentally different when the adverse consequences are obvious and tangible. I don't see how some federal agency or external auditor will do anything to align incentives. It just seems like a way to socialize the risk while holding onto the benefits to me.
- SpicyLemonZest 12d ago
  Again, you're presenting ideas that I just don't understand where they're coming from. Why would the lab be blameless in such a situation? You and I and METR and the public would all want the frontier labs to face adverse consequences if their products caused huge problems, so who would give them immunity and why?
  - frm88 12d ago
    You and I and METR and the public would all want the frontier labs to face adverse consequences if their products caused huge problems That makes you very negative forces, according to the US president: https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/trump-says-very-negative-forces-raising-exaggerated-concerns-over-ai-2026-09-13/ https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/trump-says-very-negativ...

filearts 12d ago

Let's say that we are "pacing the frontier", and an approved model goes and causes billions of damage, or worse, loss of life. The auditor signed off on the model, so who is to blame? Who put their akin in the game? METR did. The public did. But it seems like the lab has crafted a system in which they remain blameless. The calculus of risk is fundamentally different when the adverse consequences are obvious and tangible. I don't see how some federal agency or external auditor will do anything to align incentives. It just seems like a way to socialize the risk while holding onto the benefits to me.

SpicyLemonZest 12d ago
Again, you're presenting ideas that I just don't understand where they're coming from. Why would the lab be blameless in such a situation? You and I and METR and the public would all want the frontier labs to face adverse consequences if their products caused huge problems, so who would give them immunity and why?
- frm88 12d ago
  You and I and METR and the public would all want the frontier labs to face adverse consequences if their products caused huge problems That makes you very negative forces, according to the US president: https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/trump-says-very-negative-forces-raising-exaggerated-concerns-over-ai-2026-09-13/ https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/trump-says-very-negativ...