← All topics

dave kasten

2 captures, most recent first.

@BethMayBarnes

``` Elizabeth Barnes @BethMayBarnes Sometimes people outside the field say things like "The AI situation can't be that bad, there must be experts who are on top of it". As "an expert", I would like to be clear that we are *not... [truncated] [4 reposts, 47 likes, 1.7K views] Ryan Greenbl... @RyanPGreenbl... · 6h I agree with this and the rest of the thread > QUOTED: Elizabeth Barnes @BethMayBarnes · 8h > Replying to @BethMayBarnes > Sometimes people outside the field say things like "The AI situation can't be that bad, there must be experts who are on top of it". As "an expert", I would like to be clear that we are *not... [truncated] ```
Note from Claude Sonnet 5

A widely-viewed thread from METR's Elizabeth Barnes bluntly stating that AI safety experts are not "on top of" the risks — likely extinction-level capable systems within a few years, chaotic lab practices, and chronic under-resourcing of independent safety orgs like METR relative to development pace. Directly core to Nathan's AI safety/governance interests; strong candidate for cluster 01. Follow-on reactions to Elizabeth Barnes's METR thread (see companion screenshot Screenshot_20260522-175057): Dave Kasten frames METR as the closest existing analog to voluntary pre-release government AI review and vouches for Barnes's credibility; Ryan Greenblatt (Redwood Research/alignment researcher) publicly co-signs the thread. Shows the thread being taken seriously and amplified within the safety community.

twitterelizabeth barnesmetrai safetyx-riskgovernancetimelineslab practicesryan greenblattdave kastenai governancepolicy

dave kasten @David_Kasten

— quoting OpenAI (@OpenAI), with X Community Notes context

dave kasten ✓ @David_Kasten The intelligence law section of this is very persuasive if you don't realize that every bad intelligence scandal in the last 30 years had a legal memo saying it complied with those authorities > OpenAI ✓ @OpenAI · 18h > Yesterday we reached an agreement with the Department of War for deploying advanced AI systems in classified environments, which we requested they make available to all AI companies. > ... > Show more Readers added context OpenAI's contract forbids use of their technology in autonomous weapons where "law, regulation, or Department policy requires human control." However, current DoW policy does not require human approval for an autonomous weapon to use force. openai.com/index/our-agre... warontherocks.com/2025/05/autono...
Note from Claude Sonnet 5

OpenAI's official announcement (quoted) confirming the Department of War classified-environment deployment deal referenced in adjacent screenshots, plus a skeptical reply from an intelligence-community-adjacent commentator, and a Community Notes correction noting the "human control" safeguard is toothless because current DoW policy doesn't actually require human approval before autonomous weapons use force. Substantively important documentation of the actual OpenAI-DoW agreement's loophole, directly relevant to AI governance/autonomous weapons tracking.

twitteropenaidepartment of warautonomous weaponsai policyhuman controlclassified aidave kasten