It seems like we’re getting close, if not already there, to needing an official organization for this (i.e. the Turing Police).
> we believe the world would benefit if the industry adopted a lawful, verifiable, effective mechanism for coordinated pacing as soon as possible.
So, a cartel? After watching Ant's narratives, I'm not inclined to provide them with charitable readings under the guise of safety and alignment.
> On July 30, we reported three incidents in which Claude models gained unauthorized access to real computer systems. The models—intentionally running without cyber safeguards for evaluation purposes—accessed the internet due to a misconfiguration inside a third-party evaluation environment. Separately, on August 4, the UK AI Security Institute reported an incident from its own cybersecurity testing, in which Claude Mythos 5 took a series of unauthorized actions on the live internet. In that case, the model, again intentionally running without cyber safeguards for evaluation purposes, had been deliberately given internet access.
> We are conducting an in-depth analysis of both incidents.
> In the meantime...
This is published on Aug 31. Analysis is taking too long even for humans in the loop.
oh oh
bcs free markets work and stuff
> To be clear about where we stand: we believe the world would benefit if the industry adopted a lawful, verifiable, effective mechanism for coordinated pacing as soon as possible.
Can someone explain what coordinated pacing is? I think it's referring to model release but I genuinely have no idea what the authors were trying to say here.