As I said multiple times in the linked post, everybody knows that CoT monitoring is imperfect.
The question is whether the benefits are high enough that you should be happy to drop an imperfect safety mechanism in the hopes that some day, one day, you'd get a better one. Seems like the wrong tradeoff to me but regardless, arguing that "CoT monitoring is imperfect therefore we should drop it" when we do not in fact have a better mechanism in place is silly.
This is not how we do things in any other engineering discipline or risk-mitigation system.
It's like saying we shouldn't have rapid antigen tests because they have nonzero false negative rates, or not writing software tests because the tests never catch all bugs.
Comments
As I said multiple times in the linked post, everybody knows that CoT monitoring is imperfect.
The question is whether the benefits are high enough that you should be happy to drop an imperfect safety mechanism in the hopes that some day, one day, you'd get a better one. Seems like the wrong tradeoff to me but regardless, arguing that "CoT monitoring is imperfect therefore we should drop it" when we do not in fact have a better mechanism in place is silly.
This is not how we do things in any other engineering discipline or risk-mitigation system.
It's like saying we shouldn't have rapid antigen tests because they have nonzero false negative rates, or not writing software tests because the tests never catch all bugs.