sb53

Nathan Calvin @_NathanCalvin · 2h new OAI statement isn't great (1) how are they confident it lacks long range autonomy when they couldn't find ~any tests to run? (2) the plain reading of the framework is that these safeguards were required with high cybersecurity regardless of LRA - it doesn't seem ambiguous [Quoted image/screenshot]: "OpenAI says that the safeguards are not required because the model lacks "long-range autonomy." A spokesperson for OpenAI said in a statement that "we are confident in our compliance with frontier safety laws, including SB53. GPT-5.3-Codex completed our full testing and governance process, as detailed in the publicly released system card, and did not demonstrate long-range autonomy capabilities based on proxy evaluations and confirmed by internal expert judgments including from our Safety Advisory Group."— 💬 4 🔁 2 ♥ 24 📊 850 Steven Adler @sjgadler · 2h Not only that, but OpenAI cites only a single proxy evaluation, and they say 5.3 Codex "far exceeds the previous state-of-the-art performance." OpenAI also had "no robust thresholding" for whether long-range autonomy is present. This seems not great > QUOTED: The Midas Proj... @TheMidasP... · Feb 6 > Replying to @TheMidasProj > 11/ Why can't OpenAI rule out their model having long-range autonomy? > Because according to their report, they "do not ... > [Image: excerpt from OpenAI "Preparedness Framework" document: "Strengthening our ability to measure long-range autonomy (LRA): Our existing preparedness evaluations assess our models under production-like harnesses, including using compaction to elicit and assess agentic performance over longer time horizons than would otherwise be possible. We do not currently have robust evaluations and thresholding for long-range autonomy [highlighted] and have had to lean on proxy evaluations (e.g. TerminalBench) for understanding capabilities related to LRA."]