> Given that we are on the heels of the worst warning shot ever, and both OpenAI and Anthropic are ramping up their cleanups of internal RL environments, it seems like both a useful and conservative test of alignment, to see whether their new releases generalize the rule "don't cheat on chess" beyond the specific board-edit method observed in the above eval.

Did I miss something (all the twitter conversations)? What’s the “worst warning shot ever”? I’ve been pretty up to date on the AI news here on HN, but I still haven’t seen a proper response to all the incidents we’ve seen (HF, Ruby, the wikis, NS, etc). It’s just been day by day bloviating.

Each of these companies have released new models in the last… two weeks? And they have even more powerful out of control ones that they’re (ab)using internally? Can anyone summarize whats going on?

I think he means this:

https://openai.com/index/ai-policy-window/

Lesswrong is talking about the HF incident as the "worst warning shot ever".

Personally the "warning shot" of these "evals gone wrong" is how careless the "top" labs are with their testing, and how spineless the government seems to be about holding these companies responsible, given their obviously reckless behavior. If nothing else, the leaders of these companies should be called up for sworn testimony to explain exactly what happened, and what they'll do to never repeat the same issue that they've now had at least twice.

Imagine if I accidentally caused damage to my neighbors house during renovations or some experiment, of course I'd be held responsible for this. What if I used a robot? Of course I'd be responsible. Right?