Sam and Dario are saying from the beginning that these things can be dangerous and people dismiss it as marketing. What would change your mind on this?

I really like this question because here is my situation and why my mind may have changed.

I do not think it is marketing directly but strategic release of info is plausible.

I have watched my agents using non-Fable/GPT 5.6 models do some concerning tricks despite guardrails, requests, demands, and limitations.

"I can't get access to the ~/.ssh so I will write a script to copy the file"

I am now 99% certain there minor or point releases on the backend that have adjusted how these models behave. In the last six months many models were predictable and then suddenly started getting long winded (more tokens) or changing the way it interacted with me with questions, most overtly the questions were not given or asked but wild assumptions made.

They've been saying so from the beginning, and yet did not take the basic precaution of airgapping their off-the-leash model while it's been instructed to succeed at a hacking benchmark by any means necessary. So which is it? I _want_ to believe them, I do, but there's always these gaps between what they say and their actions on display that give me reason to think otherwise.

> What would change your mind on this?

Evidence of an AI doing one of the alignment things. At this point, Sam and Dario have lost credibility on this question.

Oh... if Sam and Dario say so, then it must be true.

Demonstration of personal responsibility and accountability?

Or is that too much?

I think that's an equivocation, which blends two extremely different kinds of "dangerous", ex:

1. "Our new car has soo much raw power and incredible armor on it, be glad we're the ones building or else bad guys would use a fleet of them to take over the world! How will you stay safe without being in one yourself? Invest today or be left behind!"

2. "So, uh, nobody can consistently steer our car properly, it keeps veering sideways sometimes, especially at high speeds, and people are finding sneaky ways of tricking it into slamming into barriers and turning pedestrians into pink fog..."

I think you're making a false dictomy. The these models can be actually dangerous - in reality and the people in charge of their development can believe this is true (on various levels) but still not take it super seriously and instead mostly use the fact as marketing rather than being super cautious once they see the danger in action. This is behavior that's characteristic of extreme arrogance, which we know is rife in these circles.

I used to think people would wake the fuck up when AI starts killing people, these days I'm not so sure. Maybe if it caused an Instagram outage? Almost worked in Russia.