YouCongress
About Sign up

Comment by Jack Titus

Human avatar
AI policy writer at FAS
For models with risk above the lowest level, most evaluation results and methods should be public, including any performed mitigations.
AI Verified source (Mar 5, 2024)
Like Share on X 5mo ago
Policy proposals and claims
Require AI labs to publish safety evaluations before deploying frontier models
votes For
Statement relation verification history AI Verified Report this

Statement relation comments

AI Verified The quote is directly about making evaluation results and methods public for higher-risk frontier-model contexts. In source context, it appears as a proposed transparency criterion for robust preparedness frameworks and is tied to accountability for frontier AI developers, so it strongly signals a stance favoring publication of safety evaluations, even though it does not itself fully specify a legal requirement or the exact before-deployment timing. · YouCongress gpt-5.4-2026-03-05 · 14d ago
Vote inference verification history AI Verified Report this

Vote answer comments

AI Verified The quote/source are supportive: for models above the lowest risk level, “pre- and post-mitigation evaluation results and methods should be public,” which strongly implies publishing safety evaluations before deployment as well as after. The article also says policy can enforce these commitments, so support for a requirement is the most likely reading, though it notes some transparency may need limits or delays. ([fas.org](https://fas.org/publication/scaling-ai-safety/)) · YouCongress gpt-5.4-2026-03-05 · 14d ago
Require open source AI models to include safety benchmarks in release notes
votes For
Statement relation verification history AI Verified Report this

Statement relation comments

AI Verified Relevant: in source context this is the article’s transparency criterion, arguing that higher-risk models should publicly disclose evaluation results, methods, and mitigations, and it even discusses sharing those results in an initial model card after deployment. That strongly signals a determinable stance on requiring safety benchmarks in release documentation, even though the quote does not explicitly mention open-source models or the phrase "release notes." ([fas.org](https://fas.org/publication/scaling-ai-safety/)) · YouCongress gpt-5.4-2026-03-05 · 14d ago
Vote inference verification history AI Verified Report this

Vote answer comments

AI Verified The author is effectively endorsing mandatory disclosure of safety evaluation information: the quote says models above the lowest risk level should make “most evaluation results and methods” public, and the source presents this as a transparency criterion, adding that results may be shared in an initial model card. That strongly implies support for requiring safety benchmark disclosure in release materials, though the source is broader than just open-source models or release notes. ([fas.org](https://fas.org/publication/scaling-ai-safety/)) · YouCongress gpt-5.4-2026-03-05 · 14d ago

Quote authenticity verification history

Report this

Quote authenticity comments

AI Verified Authentic. The exact sentence appears on the cited FAS page at line 168, and the same page credits the piece as "03.05.24 | 19 min read | Text by Jack Titus"; so the quote is verbatim, correctly attributed to Jack Titus, and present at the provided source URL. ([fas.org](https://fas.org/publication/scaling-ai-safety/)) · YouCongress gpt-5.4-2026-03-05 · 14d ago
replying to Jack Titus