David Rein
Titles as the sources gave them. In 1 entry, with 5 checked quotations.
What they said
Newest first. Each quotation was found word for word in the source.
“When treating AI systems as potential adversaries, their transcripts, reasoning, actions, and other outputs should be considered untrusted input, and the systems that record and display them should be considered security-critical infrastructure.”
“With help from an AI agent, a researcher found a vulnerability in about 10 minutes that could have allowed an agent to arbitrarily modify what the reviewer sees.”
“We have not observed agents exploiting this in any of our evaluations; this is just a proof-of-concept exploit.”
“If AI systems can reliably conceal what they are doing, we won’t be able to detect and respond to increasingly serious misaligned behavior.”
“Speculatively in the worst case, AIs could create a kind of Potemkin village, where everything looks normal to human engineers and researchers”
Where they stand
Labels a machine proposed from the quotations above, one line per statement. As weeks accumulate, this is where a change of view shows up, with both quotations side by side.
A label describes one quotation, never the person.
Advanced AI could slip out of meaningful human control
Leans agreelatest, machine label- Leans agree: “If AI systems can reliably conceal what they are doing, we won’t be able to detect and respond to increasingly serious misaligned behavior.”
In the Base
Every entry they appear in.
AI systems could cover up misbehavior
In a METR blog post, David Rein argues that the logs and transcript viewers used to review AI agents must be treated as security-critical. METR reports a researcher, helped by an AI agent, found a flaw in the Inspect viewer in about 10 minutes that could let an agent hide its actions. METR says no agent was seen exploiting it.