All views are my own and do not represent my employer.

In the wake of the recent wave of misalignment incidents, both OpenAI and Anthropic have reported slowing down RL training to improve safety. These incidents, combined with an apparent acceleration in the already-blistering pace of AI progress, have led a number of researchers and leaders in the industry to believe that the risk that humanity loses control of AI is now urgent enough to warrant slowing down the pace of AI development soon.

This has led to a lot of discussion about the role of third party evaluators in verifying “pacing commitments”, evaluating safety cases, or auditing compliance with safety policies. I think these are valuable roles for third party groups to aim to fulfill, but I also worry we’re putting the cart before the horse in all this talk of “verifying” and “auditing” things.

The science on loss-of-control risk is, to put it generously, nascent. Companies are not in the business of making structured, standardized claims about risk and safety that can be cleanly verified or falsified. There are no settled methods for measuring whether increasingly powerful AI systems might try to undermine human control or seize [...]

The original text contained 5 footnotes which were omitted from this narration.

---

First published:
September 25th, 2026

Source:
https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/LawgAaGTvbbnZi7u2/evidence-about-risk-should-be-transparent

---

Narrated by TYPE III AUDIO.

“Evidence about risk should be transparent” by Ajeya Cotra

LessWrong (30+ Karma)

“Evidence about risk should be transparent” by Ajeya Cotra