Skip to content

Translation in progress Some entries still include text in the original language.

Redwood Research · News

Oct 12 · Monday

Redwood Research · News

Latest publications and developments
Redwood Research

Research topics

Prompt injectionAgent safetyDeception and schemingReward hackingChain-of-thought monitoringInterpretabilityAI controlBackdoors and poisoning隐私与数据泄露Supply-chain securityDangerous capabilitiesAI 与网络攻防开源模型安全Red teaming

Companies and institutions

OpenAIAnthropicGoogle DeepMindGoogle ResearchGoogle 安全MetaxAIMicrosoftNVIDIADeepSeek阿里巴巴 · Qwen智谱 · GLM月之暗面 · Kimi字节跳动腾讯蚂蚁集团上海人工智能实验室UK AISIUS CAISIMETRApollo ResearchRedwood ResearchFAR.AIPalisade Research

Reports and frameworks

System CardFrontier safety frameworks
Oct 11Sun
  1. CNBC · TechnologyCNBC · Technology · 56

    Third-party AI safety evaluation organizations step into the spotlight

    According to CNBC, Anthropic and OpenAI have committed to embedding third-party evaluators internally, bringing small nonprofit evaluation organizations such as METR and Apollo Research to the center of AI safety governance. Anthropic CEO Dario Amodei last month proposed providing evaluators with desk space, badge access, company laptops, and access roughly comparable to that of the internal risk assessment team, and allowing them to publish critical findings. OpenAI subsequently released its own plan. Funding and independence remain unresolved issues; METR said it has received about $71 million in commitments over the past six months.

Oct 9Fri
  1. 量子位, The Decoder · 17 sources量子位 · 17 sources · 25 reports · 62

    OpenAI safety team departures and firing controversy

    In early October 2026, OpenAI's safety transparency lead David Robinson left the company and wrote in The Atlantic criticizing that the company's safety culture had collapsed, arguing that frontier labs should have multiple layers of redundancy like nuclear power plants and aviation systems. Previously, safety and alignment researchers Jasmine Wang, Tomek Korbak, and Mikita Balesni were fired for allegedly mishandling sensitive information outside established processes. The three denied the allegations and wrote to the board and safety committee, requesting collaboration with external auditors and retention of monitoring capabilities over AI model chain-of-thought, saying the real reason for the firing was raising safety concerns. OpenAI responded that an internal investigation determined the three violated sensitive information handling policies, constituting a significant breach of trust, and that the firing was unrelated to raising safety concerns or public statements, and said it was finalizing a contract with a third-party safety evaluation firm, with details to be announced in the coming weeks.

    Latest developmentsTotal 8 developments

    1. Neel Nanda质疑OpenAI解雇三名安全研究员的解释

    2. OpenAI就解雇三名安全研究员作出回应

    3. OpenAI三名安全研究员称因强调安全被解雇

Oct 1Thu
  1. Apollo Research, X @ApolloResearchApollo Research · 2 sources · 4 reports · 47

    Apollo 主张外部评测需嵌入评估员

    Apollo Research 连续发文主张，有意义的外部安全评测应让评估者以接近员工的权限嵌入 AI 公司内部，而非只做发布前最终检查点评测。文章认为最终检查点评测存在三类局限：最严重的失控风险可能出现在内部部署阶段，许多风险取决于公司流程与控制而非模型本身，且模型越来越能识别自己正在被评测；并以 Hugging Face 事件为例，指出该事件发生在内部评测和训练阶段，相关模型本就不打算以该形态公开发布。随后 Apollo 提出嵌入式评估原则，要求评估者获得接近员工级别的访问权限，并需满足降低风险、告知公众、形成良好激励、对开发者与评估者双方公平四项标准；评估者针对预先固定的具体主张给出 A 到 E 五级裁定，从 Verified 到 Blocked，并默认公开报告、说明所获访问权限与证据。Apollo 还提出任何针对谋划的安全论证都应包含四条主张：训练未激励谋划、评估与红队测试显示模型没有谋划倾向、内部部署期间从未尝试谋划、谋划推理会被检测到，并指出开发者目前无法自信地做出全部四条。

    Latest developments

    1. Apollo 提出谋划倾向嵌入式评估框架

    2. Apollo Research 提出嵌入式评估核心原则

    3. Apollo 主张外部评测需嵌入评估员

Sep 28Mon
  1. Buck Shlegeris · 39

    Ryan Greenblatt 加入 METR，继续开展类似 Hugging Face 报告的调查

    Ryan Greenblatt 宣布加入 METR，继续开展类似其 Hugging Face 报告的调查。他表示，当前大量与灾难性风险高度相关的 AI 开发基础信息并未公开，而近期事件让他改变了对公开信息价值的怀疑态度，认为获取 AI 公司内部经核实的信息尤为紧迫。他提到，现有有限的公开证据与一种可能性相符，即临近的递归自我改进可能大幅加速能力进展，进而可能在 6 个月到一年内产生极端超人类通用能力，并带来相应的大规模最坏结果风险；更多经核实的公开信息可帮助判断这类极端结果在近期是否更可能或更不可能。除能力与起飞外，对齐、安全、控制以及 AI 公司内部风险相关流程的公开证据同样有限。METR 初期计划聚焦能力/起飞、对齐与控制，他希望其他团队覆盖安全、内部流程等领域。Buck Shlegeris 表示与 Ryan 共事约 5 年，认为他此举是正确的，这些调查有望揭示失准风险。

  2. Ryan Greenblatt · 25

    Ryan Greenblatt 加入 METR 调查 AI 风险

    Ryan Greenblatt 宣布加入 METR，继续开展类似其 Hugging Face 报告那样的调查工作。他认为当前关于 AI 开发的大量基础信息未公开，而近期事件让他改变了对公开信息价值的怀疑态度；获取 AI 公司内部经核实的信息尤为紧迫，因为有限公开证据与“即将到来的递归自我改进可能大幅加速能力进展、甚至在一半年内产生极端超人类通用能力”的可能性相符。METR 初期将聚焦能力/起飞、对齐与控制，他希望其他团队覆盖安全、内部流程等领域。

Dec 9, 2024Mon
  1. FAR.AI · 13

    FAR.AI 湾区对齐研讨会 2024：160 名研究者聚焦 AI 安全与对齐

    2024 年 10 月 24-25 日，160 名来自学术界、产业界、政府和公益组织的研究者与负责人齐聚 Santa Cruz，参加 FAR.AI 湾区对齐研讨会，围绕评估、鲁棒性、可解释性与治理展开讨论。Google DeepMind 的 Anca Dragan 以"优化失准"开场，METR 的 Beth Barnes 强调严格评估与开源评测，Redwood 的 Buck Shlegeris 介绍可信监控、串通检测等 AI 控制策略。会议还涵盖中国 AI 政策、稀疏自编码器与因果抽象、辩论式可扩展监督等议题。

You have reached the end