AI brief
A LessWrong post outlines a safety case for scheming that must substantiate four claims, including that scheming was not incentivized during training and that strong evaluations and red teaming suggest the model lacks a propensity to scheme.
Written by AI from LessWrong's published text.
Source
“TL;DR: A safety case for scheming must be able to substantiate these four key claims: scheming was not incentivized during training, strong evaluations and red teaming suggest that the model does not have a propensity to scheme, scheming was never attempted…”
Interpretation or community commentary rather than straight reporting.
Read original story ↗