Fascinating that we’re converging on AI safety and alignment in time across jurisdictions. The cybersecurity approach taken here is interesting because should the model be opened it’s still not dealignable because it just doesn’t know enough.

The slow warming of the water is a good approach. I’ve been using abliteration.ai’s cybersecurity models to pentest my own software and it produces much more usable defensive results. Opus 5.5 can fix everything but the guardrails trigger too easily.

The Fable ban affair was a nightmare for defensive cybersecurity. As far as I’m concerned we’re already in the world of Void Star and Cloudbreaker is here.

▲

zozbot234 5 hours ago | parent [-]

> should the model be opened it’s still not dealignable because it just doesn’t know enough

This is the only AI-safe approach - see the OpenAI agent swarm incident where the swarm engaged in offensive cyber because guardrails were not active for their task and the model had clearly been post-trained on that narrow domain.

▲

epolanski 24 minutes ago | parent | next [-]

So the biggest threats and incidents came from the labs themselves.

Yet we keep completely unpunished offences that warrant arrests if committed by humans, and let them dictate who has access to what.

▲

jamienk 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Does this make sense? It is the same as when Stable Diffusion tried to not have "people laying down" in their training data in order to block the generation of sex pictures.

Deliberately keeping all models ignorant doesn't make sense. It won't work (whoever breaks the pact has a massive advantage); it won't be enforceable; it will have downstream impacts on things you don't want it to be ignorant about; this kind of regulatory regime invites adding more and more to the "no-no list".

Is it not possible to focus on hardening? And on new legal liabilities for operators who do security attacks?

	▲	quotemstr 3 hours ago \| parent [-]
		Deliberately keeping people ignorant doesn't help either