There aren't many working on it though, definitely not enough given how many resources are going into building AI.

AI safety at these labs are largely focused on surface level measures and aren't empowered to stop progress of the company. I was surprised when Anthropic initially held Mythos back from the public, but it was always a temporary measure to give controlled access rather than a pause to make meaningful improvements in AI safety.

You mean the people who have a powerful incentive to lie and exaggerate to sell a product?

I find HN to be filled with reactionaries who over react to every little thing when it comes to AI. Look at the response to Fable kicking some queries down to 4.8. If you read the comments you would think this was 1984 level censorship and the end of AI as we know it. In reality, it literally was something that most people would never run up against and if you did your query was kicked to a model that was state of the art literally a day ago. It's too much sometimes.

Sometimes people on the inside are too involved to see the potential pitfalls outsiders might recognize ---this is why one typically has external auditors and third party companies do assessments.