I'm glad to see this. Some initial thoughts about the control safety case:

• I don't get how the "monitoring game" is different from the red-team game? Is it because the blue team is limited to only considering protocols that use just monitoring? Or do you not expect to play a full red-team simulation (this would be worrisome)
• Option 2 (honeypotting) feels doomed (in isolation). This primarily stems from my belief that making situations that are indistinguishable from deployment is probably hard - the model has control over state in very broad and hard-to-predict ways, and this can implicitly encode that it is in deployment (for instance, the model can see code that it itself has written and would've taken a long time to write, and realize it has likely been deployed for some time). You can still run honeypotting tests using this newer distribution, but then you have to hope that you are running honeypotting frequently enough to catch when the model is confident it is in deployment.
• The elicitation problem, and the broader problem of justifying that the red-blue teaming has been sufficient, indeed feel quite hard. This is one reason as to why you might expect that control cases can only work for human-level AI - if your 'elicitation protocol' just ends up being 'use attack strategies made primarily by humans'.
  • There are related problems in justifying how many affordances to give to the red team. For instance, decisions related to if the red team should be able to give/train into the model 'coordination signals' are likely important, but might not be easy to make. Past research has been maximally conservative, but this might not be realistic.
• The limitation that you are measuring P(catastrophe | misaligned) rather than just P(catastrophe) is fairly large, and I would be interested in discussion on how important this is to others. More broadly, I don't feel great about our chances of bounding P(catastrophe) for reasons such as this.

Am I correct in interpreting that your definition of "found system" would apply nearly all useful AI systems today such as ChatGPT, as these are algorithms which run on weights that are found with optimization methods such as gradient descent? If so, it is still fairly onerous.

Thanks for writing this and proposing a plan. Coincidentally, I drafted a short take here yesterday explaining one complaint I currently have with the safety conditions of this plan. In short, I suspect the “No AIs improving other AIs” criterion isn't worth including within a safety plan: it i) doesn't address that many more marginal threat models (or does so ineffectively) and ii) would be too unpopular to implement (or, alternatively, too weak to be useful).

I think there is a version of this plan with a lower safety tax, with more focus on reactive policy and the other three criterion, that I would be more excited about.

Another reason why layernorm is weird (and a shameless plug): the final layernorm also contributes to self-repair in language models

Hmm, this transcript just seems like an example of blatant misalignment? I guess I have a definition of scheming that would imply deceptive alignment - for example, for me to classify Sydney as 'obviously scheming', I would need to see examples of Sydney 1) realizing it is in deployment and thus acting 'misaligned' or 2) realizing it is in training and thus acting 'aligned'.

In what manner was Sydney 'pretty obviously scheming'? Feels like the misalignment displayed by Sydney is fairly different than other forms of scheming I would be concerned about

(if this is a joke, whoops sorry)

I'm surprised by this reaction. It feels like the intersection between people who have a decent shot of getting hired at OpenAI to do safety research and those who are unaware of the events at OpenAI related to safety are quite low.

What Comes Next

Coding got another big leap, both for professionals and amateurs.

Claude is now clearly best. I thought for my own purposes Claude Opus was already best even after GPT-4o, but not for everyone, and it was close. Now it is not so close.

Claude’s market share has always been tiny. Will it start to rapidly expand? To what extent does the market care, when most people didn’t in the past even realize they were using GPT-3.5 instead of GPT-4? With Anthropic not doing major marketing? Presumably adaptation will be slow even if they remain on top, especially in the consumer market.

Yet with what is reportedly a big jump, we could see a lot of wrappers and apps start switching over rapidly. Developers have to be more on the ball.

How long should we expect Claude 3.5 Sonnet to remain on top?

I do not expect anyone except Google or OpenAI to pose a threat any time soon.

Was surprised by the one-shot Hanson lecture result. From it, I decided to see if Claude could identify your text, so I plugged in the above after asking "Who do you think the author behind this paragraph is?" Response:

Based on the style, content, and context of this paragraph, I believe the author is likely Zvi Mowshowitz.

Here's my reasoning:

1. The writing style is analytical and forward-looking, characteristic of someone who frequently discusses AI developments and their implications.
2. The author mentions Claude specifically and compares it to GPT models, showing familiarity with different AI models and their capabilities.
3. The discussion of market share, adoption rates, and speculation about future developments is typical of someone who closely follows the AI industry.
4. The mention of "wrappers and apps" and consideration of developer behavior suggests someone with knowledge of the AI ecosystem.
5. Zvi Mowshowitz is known for writing about AI developments, particularly on his blog "Don't Worry About the Vase" and other platforms. He often provides analysis of new AI models and their potential impacts.
6. The structure and tone of the writing is similar to Zvi's typical style, with a mix of personal opinion and broader industry analysis.

However, I should note that while this is my best guess based on the available information, I can't be absolutely certain. If you're looking for a definitive answer, it would be best to verify the source directly.

Would you like me to elaborate on any part of this analysis?

Wow

• Less important, but the grant justification appears to take seriously the idea that making AGI open source is compatible with safety. I might be missing some key insight, but it seems trivially obvious why this is a terrible idea even if you're only concerned with human misuse and not misalignment.

Hmmm, can you point to where you think the grant shows this? I think the following paragraph from the grant seems to indicate otherwise:

When OpenAI launched, it characterized the nature of the risks – and the most appropriate strategies for reducing them – in a way that we disagreed with. In particular, it emphasized the importance of distributing AI broadly;¹ our current view is that this may turn out to be a promising strategy for reducing potential risks, but that the opposite may also turn out to be true (for example, if it ends up being important for institutions to keep some major breakthroughs secure to prevent misuse and/or to prevent accidents). Since then, OpenAI has put out more recent content consistent with the latter view,² and we are no longer aware of any clear disagreements. However, it does seem that our starting assumptions and biases on this topic are likely to be different from those of OpenAI’s leadership, and we won’t be surprised if there are disagreements in the future.