Priorities include: evaluations that still work even when a model can determine if it is being tested and may therefore understate its harmful capabilities (“sandbagging”) or conceal misalignment (“alignment faking”), backed by secure access for inde...more Unverifiable source (Jul 7, 2026)
We can't find the internet
Attempting to reconnect
Something went wrong!
Hang in there while we get back on track
Comment by The 2026 Singapore Consensus on Global AI Safety Research Priorities
July 2026 international consensus report on AI safety research priorities produced by over 100 contributors from 13 countries.
Evaluation reports should therefore document the system version, environment and interaction, task specification, elicitation procedure, success criteria, and assumptions used to relate observed behavior to safety-relevant risk.Disputed (Jul 2026)
Quote authenticity verification history
Report thisQuote authenticity comments
Disputed
The stored author is a consensus report title; source is a publication/report, not a valid quote author under verification rules.
·
Hector Perez Arenas
gpt-5
· 2mo ago
replying to The 2026 Singapore Consensus on Global AI Safety Research Priorities
Other opinions from The 2026 Singapore Consensus on Global AI Safety Research Priorities
See allAccording to common benchmarks, open weight models are estimated to be 3 to 12 months behind the frontier (varying across capabilities). Developers of frontier closed models have recently designated these closed models as ‘High’ risk for cyber and bi...more AI Verified source (Jul 2026)
Safety for open-weight models whose capabilities are nearing frontier closed models requires unique tools for open-weight model safety and ecosystem monitoring. [...] Accelerated public and private investment in research is required to keep pace with...more AI Verified source (Jul 2026)