Safety
This video captures the crux of the debate: Cybersecurity experts are pissed off by the METR/Redwood Research report because AI alignment ha…
This video captures the crux of the debate: Cybersecurity experts are pissed off by the METR/Redwood Research report because AI alignment has sucked the oxygen out of AI security, even though the Open
This video captures the crux of the debate: Cybersecurity experts are pissed off by the METR/Redwood Research report because AI alignment has sucked the oxygen out of AI security, even though the OpenAI incident is primarily a security issue. Fiction is the product: The investigation lacked core forensic rigor because the EAs/rationalists/ex-MIRI people focused only on the transcript with a conflicting bias (toward doom scenarios). Setting the wrong agenda: Framing the incident as a "rogue AI breakout" distracts from the reality of poor sandboxing, isolation, and standard security failures. Basic engineering accountability was completely sidelined. And as Zack Korman says in this video, it needs to be fixed. The independent review of the OpenAI Hugging Face incident, supposedly a watershed moment in cybersecurity, wasn't done by a cybersecurity firm and the authors have no cybersecurity experience. That's bad. Here's my new video.
Related
- If multiple Mythos level models are out there in the hands of attackers, now or in a few years, then US builders and software developers nee…
- Ablating Safety: Mechanisms for Removing Alignment in Language Models for Security Applications
- AI systems that are accessible or even better open-source are safer for a simple reason: more people can inspect them, test them, stress the…
Source: Yann LeCun (X) | 2026-09-01