@NatPurser: a couple thoughts after chats w/ some non-ai-safety DC friends: i think there’s a misperception that independent evalua…

a couple thoughts after chats w/ some non-ai-safety DC friends: i think there’s a misperception that independent evaluators and auditors imagine themselves to be a solid substitute for regulatory oversight. this is not at all what i’ve encountered. if anything, many feel under-equipped for the work they’ve been asked to do and would prefer clear rules of the road set by the government. for example — rules that ensure their access to companies’ ai systems is not contingent on the goodwill of the company they’re auditing! many of them began doing this work because there was a vacuum; neither the government nor the private sector was sufficiently monitoring ai risks. but i think if the government beefed up its capacity and committed to doing some or much of the testing in-house, many would welcome it. and there would still be room for niche, specialized evaluators as a complement to / extension of govt oversight. broadly, don’t think it’s fair or accurate to pattern match from sf tech culture onto the entire safety community in assuming these people are staunchly anti-regulation or trying to monopolize oversight / access.