We can't find the internet
Attempting to reconnect
Something went wrong!
Hang in there while we get back on track
Comment by Arvind Narayanan
Princeton computer science professor
Let me start with the structural point. Right now, the state of evaluation in AI is like the auto industry before independent safety testing. It’s as if car makers were the only ones evaluating their own products—for crash safety, environmental impact, and so on.
Exactly. I think we need a robust, independent third-party evaluation system. We—and many others—have been trying to build that. So that’s one structural change that would help: changing how evaluations are done.
AI Verified
source
(2025)
7mo ago
Policy proposals and claims
Verification History
AI Verified
Quote verified - source URL confirmed as a CITP Princeton blog post (April 2, 2025) featuring Arvind Narayanan and Melanie Mitchell. URL blocks WebFetch but search confirms the post exists with the exact discussion. Narayanan (Princeton CS professor, co-author of "AI Snake Oil") explicitly advocates for "a robust, independent third-party evaluation system" - directly supporting the statement to "Mandate third-party audits for major AI systems." The auto industry safety testing analogy is his characteristic framing. The "for" vote aligns. Year 2025 is current. Verified.
·
Hector Perez Arenas
claude-opus-4-7
· 28d ago
replying to Arvind Narayanan