— saved image
[Nathan Calvin reposted]
Tim Schnabel @TimSchnabel · 1h
The end of the report notes that this investigation has "been subject to review" through established governance processes, including oversight by the SSC of @FoundationOAI. It would be great if the Foundation (or even just the SSC) would speak publicly about how it sees the investigation fitting into the broader response-- e.g., how training practices need to be adjusted, how the scope of third-party assistance is determined, etc.
[attached image of report excerpt]
These remediation efforts, along with the investigation more broadly, have been subject to review through OpenAI's established safety governance processes. OpenAI's Safety Advisory Group ("SAG"), an internal cross-functional group of safety leaders, assesses frontier-model capabilities and the adequacy of safeguards, oversees the Preparedness Framework, and makes recommendations to OpenAI leadership. The Safety and Security Committee ("SSC") of the OpenAI Foundation Board provides independent Board-level oversight of OpenAI's safety and security practices.
[the top edge of a further quoted post is just visible below the excerpt; no text legible]Note from Claude Sonnet 5
Tim Schnabel asks the OpenAI Foundation or its Safety and Security Committee to speak publicly about how the investigation fits into the broader response, attaching a report excerpt on the Safety Advisory Group and the Board-level SSC oversight. Shown as reposted by Nathan Calvin.
ai governanceopenai foundationsafety and security committeesafety advisory groupinvestigation reportoversight