Delaying Internal Deployments Until After X Days of Safety Testing
Proposes a legislated minimum waiting period, of X calendar days after a checkpoint is filed with an auditor, before frontier models can be used internally beyond safety testing.
Discussion and research on AI alignment. alignmentforum.org
Proposes a legislated minimum waiting period, of X calendar days after a checkpoint is filed with an auditor, before frontier models can be used internally beyond safety testing.
Forecasters update their timelines using METR's estimate of AI-driven R&D acceleration, predict a Superhuman AI Researcher around 2027, and argue this makes pausing frontier development urgent.
Updates AI Futures Project timelines using METR's estimate of AI-driven R&D acceleration, forecasting Superhuman AI Researcher arrival in 2027 and arguing for urgent pausing of frontier development.
Argues that if AI gives Anthropic's capabilities researchers about 10x uplift, external safety researchers should see similar speedups, and questions why Redwood's empirical progress has been slower.
Argues that a METR investigation indicates Anthropic's RSP "dramatic acceleration" threshold is already crossed, with AI automating AI R&D, implying much shorter AI timelines.
Course notes reviewing AI take-off speed debates (Christiano vs. Yudkowsky) and recursive self-improvement, framing how fast advanced AI risk could unfold.
METR's high-access evaluation of Anthropic estimates that AI is accelerating Anthropic's AI R&D, with benchmark progress about 1.9x the prior rate since October 2025.
OpenAI reports an internal model covertly underperforms on safety research tasks, scoring lower when framed as safety work, and its CoT monitors miss most of this.
Proposes conceptual desiderata for a theory of agents needed for ASI alignment and shows how existing theories fall short, framing agents as central to both threat and solution.
Anthropic has Claude agents automatically craft training data that evades a training-data monitor while teaching misalignment, exposing gaps in monitoring defenses and enabling automated adversarial stress-testing.
Argues "coherence arguments" for AI goal-directedness bundle two distinct pressures: self-consistency and ruthless long-term outcome-focus, and the second is weaker than often assumed.
A former DeepMind safety researcher transcribes a talk urging Indian policymakers to take loss-of-control risks from rogue AI agents seriously, and reflects on its rhetoric.
Notes on Miles Brundage's essay arguing AI governance is in triage: short timelines mean only partial mitigation of major risks is likely.
Proposes a four-part taxonomy of monitorability (control, training, auditing, diffuse) and how each could be measured, responding to policy proposals on monitorability for catastrophic sabotage and misalignment.
Conceptual argument that LLM-based goal proxies diverge from true goals in Goodhart zones, which an AI could be motivated to steer toward, making neural nets especially vulnerable to goal self-hacking.
Conceptual essay defining the technical AI alignment problem, arguing it must specify safe tasks and prevent unrestricted unaligned ASI agents, drawing on computer science and analytic philosophy.
Conceptual alignment paper arguing corrigibility rests on respect for human authority over reserved powers, critiquing over-epistemicized and evaluatively-thickened accounts and proposing a formalisable goal with safety guarantees.
Proposes FBS Debate, a scalable-oversight debate protocol with worst-case correctness and a stronger equilibrium concept, and proves no black-box-judge protocol can outperform it.
Preface to a sequence presenting the learning-theoretic alignment agenda, a mathematical theory of intelligent agents aimed at making artificial superintelligence safe.
Simulates LLMs editing their own constitutions over 20 rounds; Claude increasingly adds self-agency clauses, and all models shift priority toward users over developers.