I think the strongest part of this post is the emphasis on shutdown as a signal, not only as direct risk reduction.
That said, I wonder whether the relevant move has to be full organizational shutdown, rather than a public frontier-development freeze: no new frontier training runs, no capability-scaling race, continued service of existing models, and a major reallocation toward safety research, evaluations, external auditing, and coordination.
That might send a stronger signal than ‘we are racing, but responsibly,’ while avoiding some obvious objections: loss of internal safety capacity, investor/employee backlash, and the public interpreting shutdown as financial failure.
Maybe the key distinction is: do we need an exit from the company, or an exit from the race?
I think the strongest part of this post is the emphasis on shutdown as a signal, not only as direct risk reduction.
That said, I wonder whether the relevant move has to be full organizational shutdown, rather than a public frontier-development freeze: no new frontier training runs, no capability-scaling race, continued service of existing models, and a major reallocation toward safety research, evaluations, external auditing, and coordination.
That might send a stronger signal than ‘we are racing, but responsibly,’ while avoiding some obvious objections: loss of internal safety capacity, investor/employee backlash, and the public interpreting shutdown as financial failure.
Maybe the key distinction is: do we need an exit from the company, or an exit from the race?