Join free with your email
Free. No spam, ever — we'll never share your email address and you can opt out at any time. Already a subscriber? Log in
What credible people across AI noticed, why it matters, and where the field is converging or disagreeing.
Posts are grouped by conversation and tone. Select a lens to filter the stream; these are never permanent labels on people.
No development in this filter has enough independent reactions yet. The maps appear as soon as the evidence supports them.
One card per development. Sources are clustered; reaction bundles describe these posts, never the people behind them.
1 directory member surfaced this signal.
1 directory member surfaced this signal.
1 directory member surfaced this signal.
“In some discussions, sure, I agree. (And not coincidently, most of the systems don't have robust control or oversight: arxiv.org/abs/2507.03525) But yet again, the motives of speakers don't make their claims true or false.”
1 directory member surfaced this signal.
“That's one of several varieties, yes. (And it's not at all coincidental that the formalization came from people who were working with Eliezer.) arxiv.org/abs/1803.04585”
1 directory member surfaced this signal.
“The complacency is not working out well, and costs for pranks / hacks / ruining lives with hacks will keep dropping at least in the intermediate term. As I wrote last year:”
1 directory member surfaced this signal.
“Yeah, I strongly agree about the need for agreed-upon standards for evaluations, hence my work with ISO, and working on projects like this: evals-consensus.ai, as well as clearer rules for audits, hence my paper here: link.springer.com/article/10.1...”
1 directory member surfaced this signal.
“Yeah, I strongly agree about the need for agreed-upon standards for evaluations, hence my work with ISO, and working on projects like this: evals-consensus.ai, as well as clearer rules for audits, hence my paper here: link.springer.com/article/10.1...”