Peter Barnett

3 captures, most recent first. Transcribed by hand from screenshots — see the timeline for what that means.

2026-08-01 — saved image

David Krueger 🇺🇸✊ reposted
Peter Barnett @peterbarnett_ · Jul 31
4 months ago Anthropic had a model gain internet access and hack another company.
Chinese AIs are 6-9 months behind.
Chinese developers generally care way less about safety/guardrails than US developers.
In 2-5 months we will likely see rogue Chinese AIs hacking other companies. This might include US companies, causing an international incident.

Note from Claude Sonnet 5

Peter Barnett tweet forecasting that, following the earlier Anthropic incident of a model gaining internet access and hacking another company, Chinese AI developers (estimated 6-9 months behind and less safety-focused) will likely produce rogue AI hacking incidents within 2-5 months, possibly triggering an international incident.

ai safety china anthropic cybersecurity forecasting twitter

Peter Barnett @peterbarnett_

2026-05-01

Peter Barnett @peterbarnett_ · Apr 29 haha our model likes to talk about goblins no of course we dont know why, we dont know why the model does anything yes we are trying to make a superintelligent machine god, maybe it will like goblins too, we have no way of knowing what it will like, we hope it will like humans

Note from Claude Sonnet 5

A pointed AI-safety-community joke turning the "goblin" meme into commentary on interpretability failure: labs can't explain a trivial behavioral quirk in current models, yet are building toward superintelligent systems whose values/preferences are similarly opaque and hoped rather than known to be human-compatible. Peter Barnett is an AI safety researcher (MIRI-adjacent); this is squarely in Nathan's wheelhouse — interpretability limits and the "we don't know why it does anything" framing echoes his own interests in introspective transparency.

ai safety interpretability superintelligence model individuation alignment twitter

Peter Barnett @peterbarnett_

2026-02-05 — quote-tweeting Nathan Calvin (@_NathanCalvin)

Peter Barnett @peterbarnett_ · 3h: "This is crazy, and I think totally against the spirit of the original RSP. If Anthropic were sticking to its original commitments, this would probably require them to temporarily halt their AI development. (I expect the same goes for OpenAI)" > QUOTED: Nathan Calvin @_NathanCalvin · 3h: "To determine whether Opus 4.6 is ASL-4 on autonomous AI R&D, Anthropic did a survey of 16 employees b/c their benchmarks are saturated. ..." [Embedded screenshot of Anthropic document text]: "Similarly to Claude Opus 4.5, the ASL determination for autonomous AI R&D risks required careful judgment. Opus 4.6 has roughly reached the pre-defined thresholds we set for straightforward ASL-4 rule-out based on benchmark tasks. Thus the rule-out in this case is primarily informed by qualitative impressions of model capabilities for complex, long-horizon tasks and the results of a survey of Anthropic employees (described in Section 8.3.1 below). We may build more tasks to test capabilities in the long-horizon regime, but evaluations of model capabilities may also need to depend more on expert judgments, as they already do for other risks via expert red-teaming and uplift trials."

Note from Claude Sonnet 5

Substantive AI safety governance critique: Anthropic's ASL-4 (autonomous AI R&D) rule-out determination for Claude Opus 4.6 relied on a qualitative survey of 16 employees because benchmarks had saturated, which Peter Barnett argues violates the spirit of Anthropic's original Responsible Scaling Policy (RSP) commitments — implying a halt should have been triggered instead. Directly relevant to Nathan's AI governance/safety interests and to tracking Anthropic's own safety-commitment fidelity, a recurring archive theme (parallel to the Fable classifier incident already logged in memory).

ai safety anthropic rsp asl-4 claude opus 4.6 ai governance twitter autonomous ai r&d