跳到正文
研踪PaperTrail
← 研踪 PaperTrail

arXiv:2609.08789 · v2

Silent Revision: Measuring Undisclosed Change in the Safety Frameworks of Frontier AI Developers

首次提交 2026-09-08 22:19
版本更新 2026-11-02 19:44
雷达观测 2026-11-04 23:42
arXiv ↗PDF ↗

摘要

Frontier AI developers publish safety frameworks that commit them to evidencing whether their models are dangerous. The European Union and California now treat these documents as instruments of accountability and impose duties on their revision. Neither requires the developer's account to identify each change to a commitment. We introduce the silent revision rate, the share of material changes to a framework's commitments that the developer's published account does not identify, and we release the versioned, hash-pinned corpus needed to compute it. The corpus holds every public version of the safety frameworks of the twelve developers that have published one, with each provider's changelog, redline or announcement. We trace 710 commitment instances across twelve consecutive version pairs, code them against a frozen codebook, and check the coding with three independent re-runs, a blind re-coding of every disputed row and a second coding of a stratified sample. First, 64% of material changes (95% CI 59 to 69) are silent under a strict standard and 30% under a lenient one. Second, the form of the account matters less than its granularity. Narrative and itemised accounts differ by eight points that eight pairs cannot separate from chance, whereas the rate falls with the number of discrete items a provider publishes. Third, 75% of traced changes weaken or remove a commitment, and weakenings are silent more often than strengthenings, at 70% against 52%. A justification explains why a framework changed and an enumeration states what changed, and only the latter makes revision auditable. We argue that publication duties should carry an enumeration duty, which one provider already meets, voluntarily and incompletely.

作者备注:31 pages, 3 figures, 10 tables. v2: coding checked by three re-runs, a blind re-coding and a second coding; strict rate revised from 67% to 64% and lenient from 53% to 30%; the v1 narrative-against-itemised difference is no longer distinguishable from chance. Data and code: https://github.com/louisyzhu/frontier-safety-framework-corpus (DOI 10.5281/zenodo.22670700)

AI 论文解读

基于摘要 · 非全文审阅

此版本尚未生成 AI 解读。解读由后台任务生成并按论文版本保存,登录后共享已有结果。

版本差异

目前只观测到一个版本,无法比较变化。之后收录新版本时,会在这里对照标题、作者、分类和摘要。

观测到的版本

相邻记录可能跳过中间版本;首次发现 v2 及以上也会标为版本更新。

v2 · 2026-11-02 19:44 · 最新观测版本

Silent Revision: Measuring Undisclosed Change in the Safety Frameworks of Frontier AI Developers

Frontier AI developers publish safety frameworks that commit them to evidencing whether their models are dangerous. The European Union and California now treat these documents as instruments of accountability and impose duties on their revision. Neither requires the developer's account to identify each change to a commitment. We introduce the silent revision rate, the share of material changes to a framework's commitments that the developer's published account does not identify, and we release the versioned, hash-pinned corpus needed to compute it. The corpus holds every public version of the safety frameworks of the twelve developers that have published one, with each provider's changelog, redline or announcement. We trace 710 commitment instances across twelve consecutive version pairs, code them against a frozen codebook, and check the coding with three independent re-runs, a blind re-coding of every disputed row and a second coding of a stratified sample. First, 64% of material changes (95% CI 59 to 69) are silent under a strict standard and 30% under a lenient one. Second, the form of the account matters less than its granularity. Narrative and itemised accounts differ by eight points that eight pairs cannot separate from chance, whereas the rate falls with the number of discrete items a provider publishes. Third, 75% of traced changes weaken or remove a commitment, and weakenings are silent more often than strengthenings, at 70% against 52%. A justification explains why a framework changed and an enumeration states what changed, and only the latter makes revision auditable. We argue that publication duties should carry an enumeration duty, which one provider already meets, voluntarily and incompletely.

查看此版本解读 →查看此版本原文 ↗