Nathan Helm-Burger @nathan84686947
— saved image
Nathan Helm-Burger [verified] @nathan84686947 Thank you for taking the time to write this, it's really helpful to get a glimpse of the point of view from the inside. As someone who has been working in AI safety for years, and spent a lot of time asking the labs to build security appropriate to AI-hacking threats, it feels upsetting to hear that people in the labs feel like these events were a surprise. It seems basically exactly as foretold? Even coming at the forecasted year rather than surprisingly soon? There was work being done years ago on making fake cached internet for the sake of isolated evals instead of giving untrusted models access to the real internet. Did this just get abandoned because it was too inconvenient? I'm very much not a cybersecurity expert, but I have read of things like airgapped datacenters for secure computing. I've had to deal with data diodes back when I did ml engineering in finance. Like, I get that it's annoying, but saying things like "this eval needs to connect to the internet" just seems like orders of magnitude away from the proper level of caution. Here's my crude amateur attempt at describing what an isolated eval with a fake internet would look like: [embedded link card, cut off at bottom: "nathanneuro/ isolated_web_clone" with a small line-drawing illustration of a stick figure and a sign reading DATA]
Note from Claude Sonnet 5
Nathan Helm-Burger's own public X reply responding to an insider post about a recent AI lab incident, arguing that labs should use isolated evals with a fake cached internet rather than real internet access, and linking his GitHub repo nathanneuro/isolated_web_clone. A floating compose button overlaps the lower right.
ai safetyeval isolationairgapai incidentlab securityisolated_web_clonenathan's own post
