【中文翻译】 一个有趣的认知偏差： "GLM 5.3 在网络攻防方面的能力与 Claude Mythos 大致相当，同时其安全防护措施也大大降低，这意味着每额外的一天没有发生严重的网络安全事件，都进一步证明了灾难性 AI 网络风险的假设不成立。" 没错。然而，这似乎并没有被安全领域的许多人所重视。他们对待风险估计的方式就像有一个单向阀门。 我好奇这个偏差是否已经在 lesswrong / EA 环境中讨论过，果然有，一直可以追溯到 2007 年 Yudkowsky 发表的帖子《缺乏证据就是证据的缺乏》https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/mnS2WYLCGJP2kQkRn/absence-of-evidence-is-evidence-of-absence 【英文原文】 An interesting cognitive bias: "GLM 5.3 is around as capable as Claude Mythos at cyber-exploitation while also having much lower safeguards, meaning that every additional day absent some dire cybersecurity incident is further evidence against catastrophic AI cyber-risk." That's right. And yet it doesn't seem to be treated that way by many people in the safety community. It's like they have a one-way valve for their risk estimates. I was curious if this bias has already been talked about in lesswrong / EA circles and indeed it has, going all the way back to this 2007 Yudkowsky post "Absence of Evidence Is Evidence of Absence" https:
—— Arvind Narayanan（@random_walker）· 来自 X · @ylecun 转推 查看原帖
一句话结论：该说法属实但可信度低
AI 概率分析，仅供参考，不构成事实认定。本站当前版本不做新闻真实性核验。