handle truncated @BronsonSchoen
— saved image
Bronson Scho... @BronsonScho... · 16m My impression externally reading the report is it sounds like they had to fight for everything they got over several rounds of negotiations, and even then were restricted to a *very* narrow scope. OpenAI could've also said "these aren't pain points in the process but we commit to giving them X and Y by Z date." These aren't operational "mistakes". I understand from their side but I'm surprised to see you framing it this way. (FWIW I don't doubt that this was a ton of effort and required pulling a ton of novel things together, but there seem to be major restrictions and decisions to err on the side of OpenAI IP that are just tradeoffs, not mistakes) [1 reply, 2 likes, 18 views] Tomek Korbak @tomekkorbak · 7m i think it was a combination! a lot of the friction came from our (and METR's) understanding of the scale still evolving over the course of this engagement, and I definitely could've done a better job making sure they have all the data they'd need on day 1
Note from Claude Sonnet 5
Continuation of the X thread: Bronson Scho... argues that the third-party report's access limits were negotiated tradeoffs by OpenAI rather than operational mistakes; Tomek Korbak replies that the friction was a combination, including evolving understanding of scale on his and METR's side.
ai governancethird-party reviewopenaimetraccess negotiationtransparency