I also find the following chart interesting (although I think none of this is significant) — particularly the fact that pausing training of dangerous models and security standards have more agreement from people who aren’t in AGI labs, and (at a glance):
inter-lab scrutiny
avoid capabilities jumps
board risk committee
researcher model access
publish internal risk assessment results
background checks
got more agreement from people who are in labs (in general, apparently “experts from AGI labs had higher average agreement with statements than respondents from academia or civil society”).
Note that 43.9% of respondents (22 people?) are from AGI labs.
I also find the following chart interesting (although I think none of this is significant) — particularly the fact that pausing training of dangerous models and security standards have more agreement from people who aren’t in AGI labs, and (at a glance):
inter-lab scrutiny
avoid capabilities jumps
board risk committee
researcher model access
publish internal risk assessment results
background checks
got more agreement from people who are in labs (in general, apparently “experts from AGI labs had higher average agreement with statements than respondents from academia or civil society”).
Note that 43.9% of respondents (22 people?) are from AGI labs.