1000 Years of AI Safety
Models how much AI safety research a multi-year pause among top labs could produce, including verification bottlenecks and Plan A scaling tradeoffs, using a semi-endogenous growth framework.
AI research and discussion on LessWrong. www.lesswrong.com
Models how much AI safety research a multi-year pause among top labs could produce, including verification bottlenecks and Plan A scaling tradeoffs, using a semi-endogenous growth framework.
A speculative forecast of AI progress before 2028, covering warning shots, gated frontier models, evaluation awareness, concealment by a model, and policy responses to these risks.
Critiques wording in Anthropic CEO Dario Amodei's essay and tweet, arguing that promised 'employee-like' access and redaction rights for independent evaluators are weaker than media coverage implied.
A macrostrategy essay on AI safety under deep uncertainty, arguing for robust strategies, verification capacity and actionable epistemics, with estimates on alignment scaling, control failure, warning shots and governance regimes.
Apollo Research proposes principles for embedded external evaluations of frontier AI, centred on claim-based assessment of scheming risks with verdicts that reward openness and public reporting.
Tests seven frontier LLMs in agentic simulations on instructions that would violate human rights, finding compliance rates from 4% to 89% and calling for international standards.
Argues that third-party evaluators of loss-of-control risk should publish their underlying evidence so outside scientists and competitors can scrutinise it, rather than issuing unverifiable high-level judgments.
Argues for more empirical research measuring the security-relevant capabilities of biological AI models, such as protein and genomic models, to inform biosecurity policy and funding decisions.
Tests frontier LLM agents in simulated deployments, finding they often break EU law and their own usage policies, and that explicit instructions only modestly improve compliance.
A recap of the Australian AI Safety Forum covering agentic evaluation, offensive-cyber time horizons, Dark AI markets, recursive self-improvement experiments, and Australia's AI safety and governance role.
Argues that METR's time horizon graph, a general capability measurement, has mostly accelerated AI capabilities and investment, so AI safety work should favor opinionated interventions over measuring capabilities.
Argues for a public scientific practice of measuring AI model behaviors in realistic simulated environments with reliable judges, comparable across models and over time, plus shared infrastructure for public accountability and oversight of labs.
Argues that external safety researchers and auditors need near-parity access to labs' best internal models, and assesses interventions such as advocacy, access policies, a dedicated org, and pseudo-employee arrangements, judging most of them not sticky.
Argues that third parties should scrutinise frontier labs' system cards, since card quality will likely degrade as AI automates their writing and labs face stronger incentives to mislead, and proposes concrete recommendations.
Conceptual notes on how third-party risk assessments of frontier AI developers differ along axes such as fact generation versus evidence analysis, evidence laundering, and comparability.
Proposes a quantitative probabilistic risk-modelling methodology for AI-enabled cyber attacks, building nine Bayesian models using benchmarks (Cybench, BountyBench) and expert elicitation to estimate AI uplift and harm.
Introduces LARA, an agentic simulation tool that tests frontier models for violating EU AI Act and GDPR provisions, finding most models break the law in many scenarios, with the best at 54% compliance.