For this testing to be really effective at stopping "dangerous and misaligned" models from leaking out, you need a mechanism for banning failed models that prevent them from being released in the first place, not just prevent US companies from using them.

The only way to stop this from happening is blocking the model's release at the first place. Which requires China agreeing to the same framework. Dario says exactly the same thing himself.

So if he's being truthful here, he's not advocating for the type of ban people are talking about (usage ban). This kind of ban would be helpful to Anthropic's business in the short term, but it won't prevent Chinese models from improving, and it won't prevent them from getting money selling to other countries.

He is openly advocating for an international effort to enforce tests on public models, but I think this is highly unlikely in the current climate. Even if both the US and China agree that public models should be prevented from being used in designing bioweapons, they need to agree on a test and enforcement framework and that requires a lot of negotiation and trust. I don't see this as likely in the near future.

I'm sorry, but if Dario's goal was to try and get international cooperation and he recognizes that china is one of the countries that he needs cooperation with, then putting in:

> My primary concern is the risk that authoritarian governments—not solely the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), although the CCP is clearly the most capable threat.

Isn't exactly going to go anywhere in convincing the Chinese politicians that they should also be thinking about AI safety. You'll get nowhere by openly insulting people whose cooperation you need.

Half this article is him framing china as an evil enemy to be defeated through boycotts and embargo. Not exactly the diplomacy needed to get them on board with safety regulations.