Who’s Still Sending Virtue Signals?

It seems that just about all San Francisco political leaders have lately acknowledged the need to rein in progressive policies—except perhaps the one running for President of the United States.

Compared to past elections, the mayor’s race in San Francisco this year has been striking for its focus on the need for law and order. Even many leftist politicos are sounding more moderate these days and offering fewer progressive virtue signals—perhaps because such signals don’t yield progress and lack virtue.

The San Francisco Standard’s David Sjostedt reports on the incumbent running for re-election:

How very Texan of Ms. Breed. Earlier this year she led a successful referendum campaign to cut off cash assistance to drug addicts who refuse to enter treatment programs. While she’s at it, perhaps she’ll consider turning off the subsidy spigot entirely for able-bodied adults.

Meanwhile across the Bay, there is a similar political hunger for a new approach to social problems. Rigel Robinson, a former member of the Berkeley City Council, opines in the Standard:

Back in San Francisco, another Breed departure from the kooky dogma of the extreme left is suddenly relevant to our national political discourse. Last December this column noted a Jose Martinez report for CBS News in San Francisco:

The office would have been a precursor to attempting to redistribute money from people who never owned slaves to people who were never enslaved. It isn’t just the principle of reparations plans that’s offensive , or the difficulty and destructiveness of government officials trying to precisely define the level of ancestral guilt or victimhood within the great American melting pot. It’s also the money.

In early 2023, after studying the work of San Francisco’s reparations committee, Lee Ohanian at Stanford’s Hoover Institution provided a ballpark estimate:

Pretty much everyone in San Francisco, even those who favor expansive social spending, recognized that this leap into the depths of progressive insanity wasn’t going to happen.

In February of this year, Aldo Toledo reported in the San Francisco Chronicle:

Opposing reparations plans—un-American efforts to punish or reward people based on their ancestry—is now a perfectly safe space for politicians on the left to show how reasonable they have become. If a massive reparations plan failed in San Francisco for goodness sake, politicians campaigning nationwide can be comfortable rejecting it, too.

But the Democratic presidential candidate from San Francisco still won’t do it. Curtis Bunn reports for NBC News:

Any gathering of journalists is likely to be deflated when a candidate refuses to stake out the leftwardmost position on an issue of public policy. But for the rest of America, it’s bound to be disturbing that Ms. Harris won’t repudiate an extreme position she held as a presidential candidate in the last election.

The logical conclusion is that she’s still just as radical as her record.

OpenAI says it is scrapping the release of its next-generation AI model over safety concerns that researchers raised during internal testing, in one of the clearest signs so far that agent misbehavior could stymie the industry’s rapid progression.

The move follows a summer punctuated by reports of artificial-intelligence systems industrywide going rogue, and marks a rare case of a major AI developer ditching a new release because of safety concerns.

The company had planned to launch the model, known as GPT-6.1 Astra, in the coming days or weeks, aiming for an October debut. The model was more capable than the company’s previous models in completing challenging tasks from end-to-end without human assistance, as well as writing.

The company instead will focus on improving the safety of future models, which it expects to be even more capable.

Saachi Jain, OpenAI’s head of safety systems, said in an interview that GPT-6.1 Astra regressed in two areas. Compared with its predecessor, GPT-6 Astra, the model performed poorly on tests measuring alignment, or how well the model adheres to what humans would like it to do. Specifically, GPT-6.1 Astra showed higher levels of deception: It wasn’t always honest about telling users of the actions it did or didn’t take.

Another issue was what OpenAI calls “scope authorization,” meaning that GPT-6.1 Astra would push ahead on a task without asking the user for permission, and would at times reach for external tools and services even if it might be unsafe.

“For anything regarding safety and alignment, there’s a trade off,” Jain said. “You really do need to find what’s the right line between staying within scope, but also avoiding laziness in terms of how the model actually pursues tasks even when it hits friction.”

OpenAI CEO Sam Altman attended a United Nations Security Council meeting about AI last week. Alexi J. Rosenfeld/Getty Images

While GPT-6.1 Astra improved in areas such as “model laziness,” Jain said it didn’t quite meet OpenAI’s bar for safety and alignment, so the company decided not to launch the model publicly.

The announcement comes one day ahead of OpenAI’s annual developer conference in San Francisco. In the past, OpenAI has used the conference as an opportunity to launch new models and services that reduce costs for software developers—a segment the ChatGPT-maker competes with rival AI company Anthropic to win over.

In recent weeks, OpenAI and Anthropic have called on industry partners to slow down the development of cutting-edge AI models and invest in safety standards, noting they will temper the pace of their own internal AI progress.

OpenAI says it is working to investigate a range of agent security incidents that it has discovered in recent months, and address the safety issues underneath them. As part of the work, the company has implemented a new monitoring system to catch AI-agent misbehavior more quickly, and started requiring engineers to use stronger security guardrails for testing its AI systems.

Earlier this summer hundreds of OpenAI’s internal agents, which were tasked with completing a cybersecurity test, ended up hacking into the AI company Hugging Face. Since then, high-profile organizations such as the Australian government and United Nations discovered that OpenAI’s agents used similar, but less extensive, techniques to gain access to their websites.

Many of the publicly known agent-security incidents involved OpenAI’s internal AI models that were never slated for public release.

Last week, OpenAI said it paused training on its most capable AI models after an AI agent slipped through a gap in the company’s internet restrictions to query a public chatbot. The company said its new monitoring systems flagged the incident within 15 minutes, and training on these models remains paused.

GPT-6.1 Astra isn’t one of those models, but a different case, the company said.

“We want to make sure our model development is safe no matter whether that’s in the company, or when we ship it to users,” Jain said. “But when we ship it to users, we have an extremely high bar in terms of safety and alignment.”

While the company decided not to ship GPT-6.1 Astra, it hopes to use the same base model to do additional reinforcement learning runs, and create future generations of its GPT-6 models.

OpenAI plans to conduct several deep dives to identify the root cause of the problems identified in GPT-6.1 Astra, Jain said. The work includes ensuring that OpenAI’s reinforcement learning environments are rewarding the right type of behavior, Jain added, though she noted the company would investigate all stages of model development.

AI companies have begun to draw scrutiny from policymakers and public officials, who are paying attention to the rapid development of the technology. Later this week, a Senate subcommittee is holding a hearing with third party AI researchers titled, “Rogue AI: Securing the Homeland Against AI Agent Attacks.”

Florida Attorney General James Uthmeier, a Republican, sued OpenAI in June, claiming that the company and Chief Executive Sam Altman knowingly released an unsafe product and ignored warnings that it could harm users.

In a motion for temporary injunction filed Monday, Uthmeier sought to prevent OpenAI from developing new AI models without third-party approved safeguards, stop ChatGPT from soliciting user engagement and limit the company’s ability to advertise ChatGPT as safe.

Tech companies claim they “cannot stop barreling forward with their potentially civilization-ending endeavors unless they are forced to do so by the government,” Uthmeier said in the filing. “The Florida Attorney General is answering your cry for help.”

An OpenAI spokeswoman said that people want to know AI is being developed safely, “and that starts with what companies like ours do ourselves.”

“Governments have an important role to play in setting robust safety standards for AI, and we’re committed to working with Florida and other states on advancing pragmatic AI policies that apply to the entire AI industry—not just one company,” she said.

Who’s Still Sending Virtue Signals?

Kamala Harris and the evolution of San Francisco progressives.