The National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) is facing an internal crisis as staff members and scientists have threatened to resign over the anticipated appointment of Paul Christiano to a crucial, though non-political, position at the agency’s newly-formed US AI Safety Institute (AISI), according to at least two sources with direct knowledge of the situation, who asked to remain anonymous.
I don’t know, threatening to resign is a pretty concrete thing and I don’t find “revolt” such an exaggeration. You can doubt the sources and wish for more concrete evidence (a letter?), but I’d still put >50% that it’s broadly correct
EDIT: okay there’s a clear ambiguity about how many people are threatening to resign, in a way that if it’s only 1 or 2, it’s clearly misleading.
Perhaps I am overestimating how worried a source might be that their organisation traces a leak back to them if it’s known that someone from within the organisation provided it.
I don’t really see anything in the article to support the headline claim, and the anonymous sources don’t actually work at NIST, do they?
I don’t know, threatening to resign is a pretty concrete thing and I don’t find “revolt” such an exaggeration. You can doubt the sources and wish for more concrete evidence (a letter?), but I’d still put >50% that it’s broadly correct
EDIT: okay there’s a clear ambiguity about how many people are threatening to resign, in a way that if it’s only 1 or 2, it’s clearly misleading.
Agreed, the evidence is solely, “according to at least two sources with direct knowledge of the situation, who asked to remain anonymous.”
That is still consistent with them working at NIST
I think the argument is that if they did work at NIST then the article would have included that, so we can infer the very likely don’t?
Perhaps I am overestimating how worried a source might be that their organisation traces a leak back to them if it’s known that someone from within the organisation provided it.