MLCommons on Mandate third-party audits for major AI…

MLCommons

Nonprofit consortium that develops benchmarks and standards for AI systems, including AI safety and reliability evaluation.

The discipline is to communicate the general case, never the instances, and never to accept self-attestation alone as proof that something was fixed.

AI Verified (Jun 9, 2026)

Source:

MLCommons, “The patch model is breaking. AI evaluation needs a new way to disclose what it finds,” June 9, 2026.

2mo ago

Policy proposals and claims

Mandate third-party audits for major AI systems

votes For

Statement relation verification history AI Verified Report this

AI Verified Rejecting self-attestation and urging independent confirmation supports third-party AI audits. · Hector Perez Arenas gpt-5 · 2mo ago

Vote inference verification history AI Verified Report this

AI Verified Recorded answer for verified — for: rejects self-attestation as proof and supports independent confirmation. · Hector Perez Arenas gpt-5 · 2mo ago

Quote authenticity verification history

Report this

AI Verified Verified verbatim on the cited source (https://mlcommons.org/2026/06/responsible-disclosure/); source identifies MLCommons and supports the stored date. · Hector Perez Arenas gpt-5 · 2mo ago

replying to MLCommons

Other opinions from MLCommons

See all

MLCommons votes For

Open-source AI is more dangerous than closed-source AI

You can’t patch a released, open-weight model. This is the property that breaks the assumptions of the prior model of responsible disclosure. Open-source software can be patched in place; a deployer updates and the hazard closes. An open-weight model...

more AI Verified source (Jun 9, 2026)