Skip to content
AISecHub· @AISecHub · X·Indexed by this site · Originally published

OpenAI responds to the dispute over three employees' departures and announces a third-party safety evaluation plan.

AI summary

OpenAI's head of research responded to last week's termination of employment with Jasmine, Mikita, and Tomek, stating that an internal investigation found the three violated clear policies on handling sensitive information, and that the investigation uncovered issues beyond what was described in the three's open letter. The statement emphasized that these decisions were unrelated to raising safety concerns or speaking out, and that the company encourages internal safety and research debate and does not fire employees for raising concerns. OpenAI said it is finalizing contracts with third-party safety evaluation organizations and will release details in the coming weeks, and stated that monitorability has always been central to its research agenda, with substantial resources invested, including the Monitoring Monitorability paper, open-sourcing of monitorability evaluations, and the GPT-6 Astra System Card. X user @AISecHub reposted the statement and questioned OpenAI's cooperation with safety company Irregular while criticizing others, calling its ethical standards contradictory.

Full text · Original

So, you have values now? Having Irregular on your payroll while it hacks governments, nonprofits, and numerous other companies is perfectly fine with you?

What a twisted moral compass. 🤡

Quoted postOpenAI Newsroom@OpenAINewsroom
A note from our research leaders: Last week we parted ways with Jasmine, Mikita, and Tomek after a thorough investigation found they violated clear policies on handling sensitive information. Our internal investigation uncovered a significant breach of trust beyond what’s outlined in the letter they published and we stand by the decision to not continue their employment. We generally keep individual employment matters private and don't believe a back and forth would be productive or lead to a resolution, but we want to address the points they raised in their letter directly. - We want to be very clear that these decisions were not about raising safety concerns or speaking out. Safety and research debates happen every day at OpenAI, often spirited and highly critical. We actively encourage these discussions and consider them essential to making the right decisions. We cannot do the work in front of us without a high degree of trust. We will continue to be extremely forgiving of our team making good-faith mistakes. We have not and do not terminate any of our employees for raising concerns. - We are actively finalizing contracts with third-party safety assessors and will announce details in the coming weeks. People across the company have been working really hard on getting these partnerships up and running. We are committed to embedding external assessors and continue to make close collaboration with independent safety organizations a core part of our safety work. Many of our researchers already work with 3p safety organizations productively. - We agree with the letter that preserving the monitorability of frontier models requires an industry-wide commitment, including from OpenAI. Monitorability has long been a core piece of our research program, and something we continue to invest significant resources in (see our publications on Monitoring Monitorability and the subsequent open sourcing of monitorability evals, our system card for GPT-6 Astra, Jakub’s blog and post on X, and the numerous blog posts on our Alignment blog on the topic). We are deeply sad about this outcome. We appreciated Jasmine, Mikita, and Tomek’s contributions to AI safety at OpenAI and their willingness to speak up and challenge ideas. We championed their voices, supported their work, and placed enormous trust in them. These decisions were not about them raising safety concerns. We have always encouraged that and always will.
View the quoted post on X

Source: AISecHub · x.com