Announcing a coalition of +30 whistleblowing and AI organizations, calling for stronger transparency on company-internal whistleblower protections. Transparency of major AI companies’ whistleblowing systems* Transparency of major AI companies’ whistleblowing systems, according to our rating system. Details below. *Please note that AIWI only evaluates the transparency of the policy and...
Dear LW community, One week ago we have launched Third Opinion (Zvi's coverage of us from today, our X.com thread, website), a service that enables AI professionals to receive anonymous, expert guidance on concerning developments they observe in their work. This post outlines what we're doing and why we think...
Sure:
So for one, all of the companies listed above already claim to have internal whistleblowing channels, incl. retaliation protections. You can find sources for those claims in the campaign page if you're interested.
Legal provisions also already exist in the U.S. today that prevent companies from retaliating against individuals raising violations of the law - although not requiring a dedicated channel. Senator Grassley's proposed AI Whistleblower Protection Act would more concretely require AI companies to set up internal channels. We would indeed be happy to see more details in this legislation around guarantees e.g. 'independence' of a system should look like as well as transparency requirements (our level 1 and 2).
The issue even... (read 477 more words →)
Frontier AI companies currently lag global standards and best practices in creating adequate transparency around their internal whistleblowing systems: 5 out 6 companies in our target set do not even publish their whistleblowing policies.
That means we, the public, and employees in AI, are forced to 'trust' that companies will... (read 1801 more words →)
Helping inform important players. Many important players will want advice from people who have legibly thought a lot about AGI and AGI safety. Would they think to call you first when they have a question?
Who (else) is working on building infrastructure for helping individuals get the right advice at the right point in time (vs. current status quo of individuals trying to consult their direct networks)? We're doing our best to make headway here (third-opinion.org) and would be very interested in getting in touch with people who are thinking seriously about this and want to help build infrastructure for this purpose.
Dear LW community,
One week ago we have launched Third Opinion (Zvi's coverage of us from today, our X.com thread, website), a service that enables AI professionals to receive anonymous, expert guidance on concerning developments they observe in their work. This post outlines what we're doing and why we think it matters.
Thank you to all the individuals (also from this community) who have supported us over the past months and contributed to getting this off the ground. We hope this to be a valuable resource and contribution to the ecosystem.
AI professionals working at the development frontier may encounter situations that they feel raise (serious) concerns.
This matters as they are on the... (read 1344 more words →)
I think this is a real shame for multiple reasons - building relationships and reputational capital doesn't come easy. All the best to the team.