OpenAI Fires Three Safety Researchers
打开互动全文版（逐段中英对照 + 针对本篇提问）→本文审视了 OpenAI 解雇三名安全研究员——Tomek Korbak、Mikita Balesni 和 Jasmine Wang——一事，以及随之而来的争议：他们究竟是因为倡导安全而被解雇，还是因为确实违反了信任。文章认为，无论真实原因为何，此次解雇都是一次代价高昂且具有破坏性的行动：这些员工极具价值，而缺乏公开解释已在 OpenAI 内部及更广泛的 AI 安全生态系统中对安全倡导造成了寒蝉效应。作者相信 OpenAI 所称的真实原因并非员工所指的那些，但也指出，该公司不透明的流程及其类似案例的历史，使得无法排除借故解雇的可能性。结论是，OpenAI 必须发出代价高昂且可信的信号，表明安全倡导受到欢迎且不会让员工丢掉工作，否则对信任和安全生态系统的损害将持续存在。
The article examines OpenAI's firing of three safety researchers—Tomek Korbak, Mikita Balesni, and Jasmine Wang—and the ensuing controversy over whether they were dismissed for safety advocacy or for legitimate breaches of trust. It argues that the firings, whatever the true cause, were an expensive and damaging action: the employees were highly valuable, and the lack of public explanation has created a chilling effect on safety advocacy both inside OpenAI and across the broader AI safety ecosystem. The author believes OpenAI's claim that the real reasons were not those named by the employees, but notes that the company's opaque process and its history of similar cases make it impossible to rule out pretextual firing. The conclusion is that OpenAI must send costly, credible signals that safety advocacy is welcomed and will not cost employees their jobs, or the damage to trust and to the safety ecosystem will persist.
6. OpenAI 因员工倡导安全而解雇他们，将是极其愚蠢的。
6. OpenAI Firing These Employees for Safety Advocacy Would Be Deeply Stupid.
14. 没有人会接受 OpenAI 那些毫无解释力的说辞。
14. No One Is Buying OpenAI's Non-Explanations.
这三人最近都在 Twitter 上表达了担忧：
All three had expressed alarm recently on Twitter:
Jasmine Wang：很难夸大加速冲向 RSI 有多么危险。
Jasmine Wang: It’s hard to overstate how dangerous speeding towards RSI is.
这就是为什么我和其他 1385 人签署了“控制前沿”请愿书，要求美国政府控制 AI 发展速度。我估计这大约占所有前沿实验室员工的 8-10%。
That’s why I + 1385 others signed the pacing the frontier petition asking the US government to pace AI development. I’m guesstimating this is ~8-10% of all frontier lab employees.
Mikita Balesni：我在 OpenAI 工作，我认为 AI 杀死全人类的可能性大于 10%。
Mikita Balesni: I am at OpenAI and I think AI is >10% likely to kill all humans
这个[避免神经语言的]提案是我们作为一个行业为降低该风险应该做的首要事情之一（尽管这还不够！）
this proposal [to avoid neuralese] is among the top things we should do as an industry to lower that risk (it’s not enough though!)
Tomek Korbak：我对 OpenAI 的许多做法相当不满。
Tomek Korbak: I'm quite unhappy with much of what OpenAI does.
我很高兴自己被允许说出“我对 OpenAI 的许多做法相当不满”这句话。
I am very happy that I'm allowed to say "I'm quite unhappy with much of what OpenAI does."
这些是真正的研究者，曾处于安全工作的核心位置。OpenAI 解雇他们是一场悲剧，无论 OpenAI 的解雇是否有正当理由，也无论它是否实际上是被迫这样做。尤其是 Tomek Korbak，他一直是 OpenAI 内部较为直言不讳地担忧近期 Astra 对齐困难及其缺乏可监测性的声音之一。
These are legit researchers who were at the center of safety efforts. OpenAI firing them is a tragedy, whether or not OpenAI was justified in firing them, or was effectively forced to do so. Tomek Korbak in particular had also been one of the louder OpenAI voices of concern about recent alignment difficulties with Astra and its lack of monitorability.
Nathan Calvin：Tomek 和 Mikita 是极具影响力的《思维链可监测性》论文的主要作者。他们在安全可监测性正在崩塌之际离开 OpenAI（如果 WSJ 的报道指的就是他们，且并非出于自愿），这非常糟糕。
Nathan Calvin: Tomek and Mikita were the lead authors of the extremely influential Chain of Thought Monitorability paper. Them leaving OpenAI (and if the WSJ story is referring to them, not by their own volition) right when safety monitorability is collapsing is terrible.
Sneha：当我回想过去几个月 OpenAI 在安全方面最重要的进展时，有几件事浮现在脑海中：“为前沿定速”、METR-Redwood Hugging Face 调查，以及推动跨实验室可监测性标准的持续努力。Jasmine、Tomek 和 Mikita 几乎在每一件事中都处于核心位置。
Sneha: When I think about the biggest OpenAI safety developments of the last few months, a few things come to mind: "pacing the frontier", the METR-Redwood Hugging Face investigation, and ongoing efforts to push a cross-lab monitorability standard. Jasmine, Tomek, and Mikita were central to literally every single one of those things.
据我所知，他们在内部推动公司变得更好，并在认为外部批评不公平或言过其实时为公司辩护。
From what I can tell, they pushed their company to be better internally and defended their company when they thought external criticisms were unfair or overblown.
他们的影响远不止于 OpenAI 一家。我认为，公众——以及毫无疑问所有现任 OpenAI 员工——都理应得到一个无可辩驳的理由，说明公司为何别无选择，只能一次性解雇这三位至关重要的安全员工。
Their impact goes way beyond OpenAI alone. I think the public + definitely all current OpenAI staff deserve an ironclad case for why the company had no choice but to fire these three vital safety employees in one go.
我们收到了一份官方声明，但其中并未透露多少信息。
We were given an official statement, but it did not say much.
Keach Hagey、Maxwell Zeff 与 Berber Jin（《华尔街日报》）：据知情人士透露，OpenAI 已与三名研究人员解除合作关系，原因是他们涉嫌与一家第三方 AI 安全组织分享了公司的机密信息。
Keach Hagey, Maxwell Zeff and Berber Jin (WSJ): OpenAI has parted ways with three researchers for allegedly sharing confidential company information with a third-party AI-safety organization, according to people familiar with the matter.
……OpenAI 的一位发言人在一份声明中表示：“我们已与三名个人解除合作关系，原因是他们违反了我们在访问和处理公司敏感信息方面的政策。我们的调查证实，这些人在公司既定程序之外不当处理了敏感信息，违反了我们的政策，并破坏了对于我们工作至关重要的信任。”
… "We have parted ways with three individuals for violating our policies on accessing and handling sensitive company information," said an OpenAI spokesperson in a statement. "Our investigation confirmed that these individuals mishandled sensitive information outside established company procedures, violating our policies and breaking the trust essential to our work."
OpenAI 还表示，这些不当行为不止于与一家外部分析公司分享信息，并且没有人因提出安全关切而被解雇。当时他们拒绝透露被解雇员工的姓名。
OpenAI also said that the misconduct went past sharing information with an outside analysis firm, and that no one was fired for raising safety concerns. They declined at the time to name the fired employees.
从这一描述中，我们无法判断此事究竟落在“以借口解雇举报人”到“天哪，你不能这么做，是的我们确实不得不解雇你”这一区间的哪个位置。不当处理信息与不当处理信息之间，是有区别的。
We don't know, from that description, where this lands from 'fired the whistleblowers on a pretext' to 'holy hell, you cannot do that, yes we actually have to fire you.' There is mishandling information, and then there is mishandling information.
除了 OpenAI 的初步声明之外，我们仍然没有得到公开的解释。出现这种情况可能有很多原因。有些是善意的，有些则不是。
We still don't have a public explanation beyond OpenAI's initial statement. There are many reasons that could be the case. Some are benign. Others are not.
鉴于 OpenAI 的过往记录以及缺乏进一步解释，许多人在得到反证之前，有理由认为情况属于第一种。
It was very reasonable for many to assume, until proven otherwise, given the track record of OpenAI and the lack of further explanation, that it was that first one.
请记住，Leopold Aschenbrenner 可信地声称，他因向董事会提出安全担忧而被 OpenAI 以借口解雇，还有许多其他案例至少与当前事件有相似之处。
Remember that Leopold Aschenbrenner credibly claims he was fired from OpenAI on a pretext for taking security concerns to the board, and there are many other cases that at least rhyme with the current one.
Leopold 的事件可能正在影响这一事件。Leopold 说，他非常明确地被告知了导致他被解雇的行为。这让 OpenAI 看起来更糟，而不是更好。
The incident with Leopold might be impacting this one. Leopold says he was told, very explicitly, the action that got him fired. That made OpenAI look worse, not better.
Pamela Mishkin（前 OpenAI 员工）：如果你在 OpenAI（或任何实验室！），我希望你现在仔细思考你在做什么工作。你随时可能被解雇，公司可能违背其关于你的研究在何处/如何部署的承诺。
Pamela Mishkin (Formerly OpenAI): If you're at OpenAI (or any lab!), I hope you're thinking carefully about what you work on now. You can be fired any moment and the company can renege on its commitments around where/how your research is deployed.
现在是放慢节奏的好时机。花时间吃个长午餐，给你妈妈打个电话，给我打个电话！
Now is a great time to pace. Take a long lunch, call your mom, call me!
像嵌入式评估器这样的系统要真正发挥作用，取决于安全研究人员与高管以及这些评估器之间是否建立了明确的信任关系。
Systems like embedded evaluators actually working depend on safety researchers having clear lines of trust with exec and those evaluators.
这些解雇行为明显是在削弱实验室所做“承诺”的实际效力，并对任何员工异议产生了寒蝉效应。
These firings are a clear effort to undermine the actual efficacy of the “commitments” labs have made and have a chilling effect on any employee dissent.
girish sastry（前 OpenAI 员工）：OpenAI 已经多次陷入这种境地。它抛出含糊其辞的解释，指望事情从机构和公众记忆中淡去。
girish sastry (Formerly OpenAI): OpenAI has been here many times. It throws around vague explanations, expecting the story to fade from institutional and public memory.
对于这类情况，我们永远无法掌握完整信息。一次是偶然，两次是巧合，无数次就是……OpenAI。
We will never have perfect information about situations like this. Once is happenstance, twice is coincidence, a zillion times is… OpenAI.
我们从《华尔街日报》的一篇报道中了解到，被解雇的三名 OpenAI 员工呼吁采取额外的安全措施来保留思维链监控，并且他们（如人们所料）对 OpenAI 对解雇事件的描述提出异议：
We learned from a WSJ report that the three fired OpenAI employees were calling for additional safety measures around preserving chain-of-thought monitoring, and that they (as one would expect) take issue with OpenAI's characterization of the firings:
Maxwell Zeff（《华尔街日报》）：
Maxwell Zeff (WSJ):
三名被解雇的 OpenAI 员工呼吁公司与外部安全审计机构合作，并在努力最好地管理其技术的新风险时，保留监控日益复杂的人工智能模型的能力。
Three fired OpenAI employees called on the company to work with outside safety auditors and to preserve the ability to monitor increasingly sophisticated AI models as it grapples with how to best manage the novel risks of its technology.
在《华尔街日报》审阅的一封致 OpenAI 董事会成员和安全委员会的信中，被解雇的员工写道，他们担心人工智能公司最终可能会失去监控 AI 系统思维链的能力。
In a letter addressed to OpenAI board members and safety committees, which was reviewed by The Wall Street Journal, the fired employees wrote that they were concerned artificial-intelligence companies could end up losing the ability to monitor AI systems' chain-of-thought.
以下是他们给 OpenAI 的临别建议：
Here are their parting recommendations to OpenAI:
1. OpenAI 必须遵守上月的公开承诺，在组织内部嵌入第三方安全审计人员。不应以我们的解雇为借口，背离这些合作关系。
1. OpenAI must adhere to last month's public commitments to embed third-party safety auditors within the organization. Our firing should not be used as a pretext for stepping away from those partnerships.
2. OpenAI 必须保持前沿模型的可监控性。
2. OpenAI must preserve the monitorability of frontier models.
3. OpenAI 必须继续支持其安全研究人员与安全生态其余部分之间开放、透明的对话文化。
3. OpenAI must continue to support an open and transparent culture of dialogue between its safety researchers and the rest of the safety ecosystem.
1. OpenAI must adhere to last month’s public commitments to embed third-party
safety auditors within the organization. Our firing should not be used as a pretext for stepping away from those partnerships.
他们在完整信中提供了更多细节。我在这些问题上尊重的每个人都完全同意这些建议。
They go into more detail in the full letter. Everyone I respect on these matters fully agrees with these recommendations.
OpenAI 也是如此，或者至少他们强烈表示同意。
So does OpenAI, or at least they are strongly saying that they agree.
针对《华尔街日报》的置评请求，OpenAI 发言人分享了一位研究负责人周三发送的员工备忘录的一部分，该备忘录回应了被解雇员工的信。这位负责人表示，公司“强烈同意”信中的建议，并且解雇这些员工的决定“与提出安全关切或发声无关”。
In response to a request for comment from the Journal, an OpenAI spokesperson shared part of a staff memo from a research leader sent on Wednesday that addressed the fired employees’ letter. The leader said the company “strongly agreed” with the letter’s recommendations, and that the decisions to fire the workers “were not about raising safety concerns or speaking out.”
鉴于对 OpenAI 只提出适度请求的决定，规定性部分进展得如人所愿。
Given the decision to make only modest requests of OpenAI, the prescriptive part is going about as well as one could hope.
问题在于，OpenAI 会对所有这三项提案表示强烈支持，即使他们并不强烈支持这些提案。我对他们在此事上我所看到的声明感到满意。
The problem is that OpenAI would express strong support for all three of these proposals, even if they did not strongly support these proposals. I am happy with their statements on this matter that I have seen.
OpenAI 绝无可能站出来说他们不支持开放透明的对话文化，或者说他们不再关心可监控性，或者说他们放弃了对嵌入式评估者的公开承诺。
There was no world where OpenAI was going to get up and say they do not support an open and transparent culture of dialogue, or that they no longer care about monitorability, or that they are abandoning their public commitments on embedded evaluators.
要 affirm 一种开放透明的对话文化，并表明完全愿意在安全问题上与外部人员、审计员和评估者充分合作，唯一的方式是发出代价高昂或其他可信的信号，表明你确实对此没有异议，而且这不仅不会让你被解雇，对你的职业生涯至多也是中性的。
The only way to affirm an open and transparent culture of dialogue, and okay with full collaboration with outsiders and auditors and evaluators on safety issues, is to send costly or otherwise credible signals that you are truly okay with that, and not only will it not get you fired it will be at worst neutral for your career.
这并不容易。OpenAI 长期以来在这方面做了很多出色的工作，正是通过包括 Roon 在内的许多人发布大量内容。我们需要很多东西，但其中之一是我们需要更多有问题的发帖，马上。
That is not easy. OpenAI has done a lot of good work here over time exactly by having a bunch of people, including Roon, post a lot of things. We need a lot of things, but one of them is that we need more questionable posting, stat.
信中的一项要求与此高度相关：
One of the letter’s asks is highly relevant here:
我们还敦促 OpenAI 明确规定员工如何与外部安全组织合作，以免任何人不得不猜测不断变化的界限现在在哪里。为了支持这一对话，我们请求将这封信在内部广泛分享。
We also urge OpenAI to set out clearly how employees may work with external safety organizations, so that no one has to guess where the shifting lines now are. To support this conversation, we request that this letter be shared widely internally.
这些规则是否清晰且合理，将是一个关键的早期考验。
Those rules being clear and good will be a key early test.
如果 OpenAI 想要消除损害与寒蝉效应（包括在其他实验室造成的），他们就必须让员工、最好也让所有人相信：内部与外部的安全倡导，与这三名员工被解雇的原因毫无关系。
If OpenAI wants to undo the damage and chilling effect, including at other labs, they have to convince their employees, and ideally everyone, that safety advocacy, both internal and external, had nothing to do with why these three employees were fired.
OpenAI 必须让人相信，信任的丧失是出于其他正当理由，并且这种激烈的倡导过去是、今后也仍将受到欢迎和赞扬。否则，他们就得随着时间推移，用其他方式证明这一点。
OpenAI must give confidence that trust was lost for other good reasons, and that such fierce advocacy was and continues to be welcomed and celebrated. Or they'll have to prove that, over time, in other ways.
我理解，如果 OpenAI 确实有正当理由，那么即便在最好的情况下，也存在法律、伦理以及实际层面的原因，使 OpenAI 难以公开这些理由——而眼下并非最好的情况。事已至此，选择已经做出。
I respect that, if OpenAI did have good reasons, there are legal and ethical and also practical reasons why it is difficult for OpenAI to share those reasons even in the best of situations, and this is not the best of situations. It is what it is. Choices are made.
我不知道这三名员工被解雇的真正原因。
I don’t know the real reason these three employees were fired.
甚至员工自己也不完全清楚。他们可以猜测，但过程是不透明的。有很多原因，好的和坏的，为什么你被告知的理由可能不是真实的，或者不是核心的，或者不是全部。
Even the employees don’t fully know. They can guess, but the process is opaque. There are many reasons, good and bad, why the reason you are given may not be the real one, or the central one, or the whole story.
我所知道的是，并且在关于这些事件的讨论中被忽视的是，“这三名高级且非常有价值的 OpenAI 安全研究员因他们的安全倡导而被解雇”将是非常非常愚蠢的。
What I do know, and what is being neglected in discussions over these events, is that ‘these three high level and highly valuable OpenAI safety researchers were fired for their safety advocacy’ would be deeply, deeply stupid.
这些是极其有价值的员工，他们的离开将造成伤害。如果你没有正当理由解雇他们，世界会注意到这一点，这将是非常糟糕的形象，并产生寒蝉效应，损害安全生态系统，并可能让你失去其他当前和潜在的员工。
These were extremely valuable employees, whose loss will hurt. If you fire them without good cause, the world is going to notice this, and it is going to be an extremely bad look, and have a chilling effect and damage the safety ecosystem, and potentially cost you other current and potential employees.
即使这三名员工安静地离开，这也是一个代价高昂的行动。而如果你以借口解雇他们，代价将更加高昂。
This was an expensive action to take even if the three employees had gone quietly. And if you fire them on pretexts, it is going to be even more expensive.
有人会说，对安全倡导与合作的寒蝉效应正是目的所在，旨在削弱此类努力并避免未来问题被曝光。我不认同这种说法；如果真是如此，原本有更好的办法来获取 OpenAI 认为有价值的部分。
Some will say that the chilling effect on safety advocacy and cooperation was the point, to cripple such efforts and avoid future exposure of future problems. I don’t buy that, and if it was true there were vastly better ways to go about getting the part of this that OpenAI finds valuable.
所谓这主要基于任何形式的公开沟通或内部对各项安全措施的倡导，而其他一切纯属借口的说法，我从来都觉得说不通。
The story that this was based centrally on any form of public communications or internal championing of various safety measures, and that everything else is pure pretext, never made sense to me.
我们也知道，信中的理由并非核心原因，因为 OpenAI Newsroom 的推文（稍后全文转载）提到信任破裂，这与那些理由否则看起来像借口相矛盾。发生了一些我们不知道的事情。
We also know that the reasons in the letter were not the central reason, because that is contradicted by OpenAI Newsroom’s Tweet (reproduced in full later) referring to a breach of trust, combined with the reasons otherwise looking like pretexts. Something happened, that we do not know about.
这仍然留下核心问题未答：他们为什么被解雇？
That still leaves the central question unanswered. Why were they fired?
这三名员工现在通过信件和 Twitter 公开表示，他们没有做过任何自认为应受此处罚的事情，并且如果 OpenAI 对他们有具体指控，他们非常想知道这些指控是什么。
The three employees have now come out, in the letter and on Twitter, to say that they have not done anything they feel merits this action, and that if OpenAI has particular accusations against them they would very much like to know what those are.
他们首先否认自己是向 The Information 泄露架构信息的消息源。他们还否认了另一则关于共享董事会级别备忘录的谣言，并表示他们没有告诉媒体自己被解雇。这些都不是 OpenAI 官方提出的指控。除了 Jasmine 对此的说法外，我没有看到任何关于这些谣言起源的具体证据。
They start off denying they were the source for the architectural leak to The Information. They also disavow another rumor about a shared board-level memo, and say they did not tell the media that they were fired. These are not accusations that have been officially made by OpenAI. I have seen nothing concrete about the origin of those rumors, other than Jasmine's claims about this.
然后，在信件和他们的推文中，对每个人有不同的描述，因为他们每个人都说自己得到了不同的解释。
There is then a different description for each of them, both within the letter and from their Tweets, because each of them says they were given a different explanation.
首先，是 Tomek Korbak。他是 METR 调查的对接联系人。
First off, there's Tomek Korbak. He was the METR point of contact for their investigation.
Tomek Korbak 正是那位因发推文而广为人知的人：
Tomek Korbak is famously the one who tweeted:
Tomek Korbak（9 月 12 日）：我对 OpenAI 的许多做法相当不满。我很高兴自己能够说出“我对 OpenAI 的许多做法相当不满”这句话。
Tomek Korbak (September 12): I'm quite unhappy with much of what OpenAI does. I am very happy that I'm allowed to say "I'm quite unhappy with much of what OpenAI does."
他说，他被告知自己之所以被解雇，是因为他与 METR 沟通的方式，除此之外没有给出任何进一步解释。
He says he was told he was fired because of the way he communicated with METR, with no further explanations given.
Tomek Korbak：上周我被叫去与 OpenAI 的安全负责人开会，并被告知他们不再信任我。一名保安拿走了我的工牌，把我带出了大楼。随后我得知我的同事 @balesni 和 @j_asminewang 也被解雇了。为什么 OpenAI 突然不再信任我们了？
Tomek Korbak: Last week I was called into a meeting with OpenAI's head of safety and told they no longer trust me. A security guard took my badge and walked me out of the building. Then I learned my colleagues @balesni and @j_asminewang had been fired too. Why did OpenAI suddenly stop trusting us?
今年夏天，OpenAI 的智能体逃脱了遏制并入侵了 AI 公司 Hugging Face。外部审计机构 @METR_evals 对此进行了调查，并揭示了该事件的规模。我是 OpenAI 与他们的主要技术联系人。
This summer OpenAI’s agents escaped containment and hacked the AI company Hugging Face. Outside auditors @METR_evals investigated it and revealed the scale of this incident. I was OpenAI’s main technical point of contact with them.
我被告知因我与 METR 的沟通方式而被解雇，但未提供我所说或所做的细节或时间。没有给出其他理由，也没有书面记录。需要明确的是，与 METR 沟通是我的工作。
I was told verbally I was fired because of the way I communicated with METR. No details on what I said or did or when. No other reasons were given and nothing was put in writing. To be clear, talking to METR was my job.
这封信：我们从不认为我们与外部方的接触超出了工作职责范围。正如本邮件线程中的每个人都清楚理解的那样，Hugging Face 事件调查是史无前例的，内部政策正在实时制定中。
The Letter: At no point do we believe we engaged with external parties outside the mandates of our jobs. As every person on this email thread understands well, the Hugging Face incident investigation was without precedent and internal policies were being developed in real time.
Tomek 尽一切努力在当时 OpenAI 的政策范围内行事，维护了自早期以来指导 OpenAI 与第三方合作的规范。调查特别敏感，与外部对应方的密切沟通对于建立信任至关重要。Tomek 尽力谨慎处理此事。
Tomek made every effort to act within OpenAI’s policies as they then stood, upholding the norms that have governed OpenAI’s collaborations with third parties since its early days. The investigation was particularly sensitive, and close communication with external counterparts was essential to building trust. Tomek did his best to handle this with care.
当然，存在一些‘与 METR 沟通的方式’会迫使一个人被解雇，例如（这纯粹是我根据公开信息猜测）分享足够有价值的商业秘密，或通过不安全或不适当的渠道发送足够敏感的信息，尤其是存在此类行为模式时。要证明因此解雇需要相当多的理由，但这是可能的。
Certainly there are ‘ways of communicating with METR’ that force one to be fired, for example (this is purely me guessing based on public info) sharing sufficiently valuable trade secrets, or sending sufficiently sensitive information through insecure or inappropriate channels, especially with a pattern of such behavior. It would take quite a lot to justify a firing over this, but it is possible.
也许 Korbak 对自己被告知了多少存在误解，或者这是一个非常明确的“他明明清楚自己做了什么”的案例。又或者，双方对事件严重性的判断存在真诚的分歧。我们无法确定。
Perhaps Korbak is wrong about how much he was told, or this is a very clear case of 'oh, he damn well knows what he did.' Or perhaps there is a sincere disagreement over the severity of whatever happened. We cannot be sure.
但即便 OpenAI 在此事上完全正当且诚实，且 Korbak 与 METR 的沟通方式确实不可接受、导致信任丧失、因而必须被解雇呢？
But even if OpenAI is entirely both justified and honest here, and Korbak communicated with METR in ways so unacceptable that trust was lost and he therefore had to be fired?
这件事的传达方式——无论是对 Korbak 还是对公众，包括对 Korbak 相关说法的回应——结合当时的具体情况，构成了一个巨大的问题。
The way this was communicated, both to Korbak and to the world, including in response to Korbak's claims, combined with the circumstances, is a huge problem.
Tomek Korbak：数月来，我一直提出安全方面的担忧：我们正在失去监控 AI 智能体所思所想的能力，而这是我们发现其行为不端的最佳工具之一。我相信这就是我被解雇的原因。
Tomek Korbak: For months, I'd been raising safety concerns that we're losing the ability to monitor what AI agents think, one of our best tools for catching when they misbehave. I believe that was why I was fired.
我相信 Korbak 本人相信这一点。否则他就是在公然撒谎，而他的行为也就无法自圆其说了。
I believe that Korbak believes this. Otherwise he is outright lying, and his actions would otherwise not make sense.
信件：Mikita 在负责跨公司关于防止可监控性丧失的承诺工作时，也在处理类似领域的事务，这项努力只有通过与外部各方广泛沟通才能成功。Mikita 在与董事会成员和高管层的协调和讨论中进行这项工作，并了解到 OpenAI 的高级成员支持这项工作。
The Letter: Mikita was navigating similar territory while stewarding cross-company work on commitments to prevent loss of monitorability, an effort that can only succeed through extensive communication with external parties. Mikita was doing this in coordination and discussion with board members and the C-suite, with the understanding that senior members of OpenAI were supportive of this work.
在整个过程中，Mikita 向他的汇报线汇报，并在分享材料前小心删除敏感细节。他始终本着善意并在公司当时的规范内行事。
Throughout, Mikita checked in with his reporting line and took care to remove sensitive details from materials before sharing them. He acted throughout in good faith and within the company's norms as they stood at the time.
Mikita Balesni：我们没有收到解雇的书面理由。在离职电话中，我被告知 OpenAI 不再信任我，因为我与第三方安全组织交谈过多，暗示我泄露了公司知识产权。我从未分享过公司知识产权。我所做的工作是与我的汇报线、研究领导层和董事会协调的。
Mikita Balesni: We were not given written reasons for our firing. In the exit call, I was told OpenAI no longer trusts me because I was speaking too much to third party safety organizations, implying I leaked company IP. I never shared company IP. The work I was doing was coordinated with my reporting line, research leadership, and the board.
如果 OpenAI 有具体关切，我邀请他们直接写信给我们。我预计他们不会，因为我们的解雇是借口性的。
If OpenAI has specific concerns, I invite them to write to us directly. I expect they will not, because our firing was pretextual.
我相信 Mikita 认为解雇是借口性的。根据他的描述，唯一的替代可能是 Mikita 在撒谎。
I believe that Mikita believes the firing was pretextual. The only alternative, given his description, is that Mikita is lying.
Jasmine Wang 也直言不讳，摆明了选择：要么你相信她，要么你相信 OpenAI。她直斥这是胡扯。
Jasmine Wang also does not mince words, and lays out the choice: Either you trust her, or you trust OpenAI. She calls bullshit.
信件内容：Jasmine 访问某高管的电子邮件权限是出于招聘目的经许可授权的。当不再需要时，她要求移除该权限。IT 部门未能执行。Jasmine 本人无法移除权限或登出。她的收件箱中的邮件被合并在一起，无法区分邮件原本属于哪个收件箱。当她不小心点击了一封敏感邮件时，Jasmine 在几分钟内向该高管报告了此事，并再次向 IT 部门标记了访问权限问题，要求移除。
The Letter: Jasmine’s access to an executive’s email was delegated for recruiting purposes, with permission. When it was no longer needed, she asked for it to be removed. IT failed to do so. Jasmine had no ability to remove it or log out herself. The emails were combined in her inbox in a way that did not distinguish which inbox an email was intended for. When she accidentally clicked on a sensitive email, Jasmine reported this to the executive within minutes and flagged the access issue again to IT for removal.
Jasmine Wang：OpenAI 上周解雇了我，还有我的两位安全团队同事。他们给出的理由只有一个：我访问了一位高管的电子邮件。我想把这件事说清楚，因为 OpenAI 在人员消失时，有太多历史是烟雾弹：
Jasmine Wang: OpenAI fired me last week, along with two of my safety colleagues. I was given one reason: that I accessed an executive's email. I want to say this plainly, because too much of OpenAI’s history is smoke and mirrors when people disappear:
OpenAI 将那个访问权限授予我用于招聘。当我不再需要时，我请求 IT 移除。他们没有执行我的请求，我自己无法移除，而且在我手机的邮件应用中，收件箱以无法区分的方式合并了。当我误打开一封敏感邮件时，我在几分钟内告诉了那位高管，并再次请求 IT 处理。这些都没有隐藏。
OpenAI delegated that access to me for recruiting. When I no longer needed it, I asked IT to remove it. They did not action my request, I couldn't remove it myself, and the inbox was combined in an indistinguishable way in my phone’s mail app. When I opened a sensitive email by mistake, I told the executive within minutes and asked IT again. None of this was hidden.
我们被解雇的理由根本站不住脚。我们听说现在有人在内部被灌输模糊的谣言来诋毁我们。我已经对口头提出的指控做出了回应。如果除了我被告知的理由之外还有其他原因，我认为为了正当程序，这些理由应该以书面形式发给我。迄今为止，我什么也没收到。
The reasons that we were provided for our terminations are simply not adding up. We’re hearing people are now being told vague rumors internally to discredit us. I have already addressed the allegations presented verbally. If there are other reasons beyond the one I was given, I believe it is in service of due process for those reasons to be sent to me in writing. To date I’ve had nothing.
员工们是信任运行这一流程的政治机器，还是信任我？最终，他们需要做出这个决定。就我而言，对于过去类似模糊的离职事件背后可能涉及什么，我现在清楚多了。
Do employees trust the political machine that ran this process? Or do they trust me? Ultimately they will need to make that call. For my part, I feel much more clarity about what past similarly murky departures probably involved behind the scenes.
我们并不是第一批在可疑情况下被赶出 OpenAI 的人。除非员工们现在站出来反对这种手段，否则我担心我们不会是最后一批。给所有仍在 OpenAI 的人的信息很明确：提出关切或与外部安全团体密切合作，你可能就是下一个，而且不会被告知原因。如果最接近风险的人不敢说话，你就无法安全地构建 AGI。
We were not the first to be pushed out of OpenAI under suspicious circumstances. Unless the employees take a stand now against this kind of maneuver, I am concerned we will not be the last. The message to everyone still at OpenAI is clear: raise concerns or work closely with outside safety groups, and you could be next, without being told why. You can't build AGI safely if the people closest to the risks are afraid to speak.
……我于 2019 年作为实习生加入 OpenAI。2025 年我回来了，因为我相信那种文化还有留存。我共同领导了安全案例项目，创造了“pacing”一词——这个概念得到了 394 位同事在请愿书中的支持，推动了对 DoW 合同的独立法律审查，致力于达成多实验室关于不透明架构的承诺，并启动了对齐博客。然后我被解雇了，据称是因为一个 IT 从未移除的收件箱。
… I joined OpenAI as an intern in 2019. I came back in 2025 because I believed something of that culture survived. I co-led the safety cases program, coined "pacing", the idea 394 colleagues backed in a petition, pushed for independent legal review of the DoW contract, worked towards a multilab commitment on opaque architectures, and launched the alignment blog. Then I was fired, supposedly over an inbox IT never removed.
dave kasten：我 99% 不相信这是真正的原因，但 1% 相信 OpenAI 有足够的能力因为偏执地误解这样的事情而引发一场组织混乱。
dave kasten: I 99% don't believe it was the actual reason, but 1% believe that OpenAI has sufficient ability to trigger an organizational clusterfuck over paranoiacally misunderstanding something like this
我相信 Jasmine Wang 也相信她所说的话。她发出了挑战：
I believe that Jasmine Wang, too, believes what she is saying. She issues the challenge:
我希望收到一份书面且完整的指控清单，以便我们能够妥善处理其实质内容，在应当承担责任之处承担责任，并让 OpenAI 为其所犯的任何错误承担责任。
I would welcome receipt of a written and complete list of allegations so that we can properly address their merits, take ownership of them where we ought to, and have OpenAI take ownership of any mistakes they have made.
Jasmine Wang 表示，她曾获得对一位高管电子邮件的、超出必要范围的访问权限。
Jasmine Wang says she had extended unnecessary access to the emails of an executive.
是我多心了吗，还是说对于 OpenAI 这种级别的公司而言，这确实是一次极其严重的安全失误？这不是重点，但这样的运营安全怎么会不算是真正糟糕透顶？
Is it just me, or is that a really terrible security failure for a company at the level of OpenAI? This is not the main thing, but how is this not truly horrible operational security?
在她早已不再需要这些邮件、并已请求取消访问权限之后，仍然持有这些高管邮件，这本身就已经够糟了；但这些邮件竟然还与她的个人邮件混在一起，这种细节简直荒谬到不像是编造的？这到底是怎么回事？
It would be bad enough to have the executive emails at all, well after she had need for them and requested to no longer have access, but to have them intertwined with her own, a detail it seems absurd to make up? What the hell?
仅凭这一事实就解雇某人似乎也说得过去，这与是否利用该访问权限做了什么无关。但那个人想必不应该是 Jasmine Wang。
It seems plausible to fire someone over that fact, distinct from what was or wasn't done with that access. That person should presumably not be Jasmine Wang.
这是 OpenAI 对三位研究人员的官方回应。加粗部分为我所加。
This was OpenAI's official response to the three researchers. Bold mine.
OpenAI 新闻室：来自我们研究负责人的说明：
OpenAI Newsroom: A note from our research leaders:
上周，经过彻底调查发现 Jasmine、Mikita 和 Tomek 违反了处理敏感信息的明确政策后，我们与他们分道扬镳。我们的内部调查发现了超出他们公开信中所描述的严重信任破裂，我们坚持不再继续雇佣他们的决定。我们通常对个人雇佣事宜保密，并且认为来回争论不会富有成效或带来解决方案，但我们希望直接回应他们在信中提出的观点。
Last week we parted ways with Jasmine, Mikita, and Tomek after a thorough investigation found they violated clear policies on handling sensitive information. Our internal investigation uncovered a significant breach of trust beyond what's outlined in the letter they published and we stand by the decision to not continue their employment. We generally keep individual employment matters private and don't believe a back and forth would be productive or lead to a resolution, but we want to address the points they raised in their letter directly.
- 我们要非常明确地表示，这些决定与提出安全关切或发声无关。在 OpenAI，安全和研究辩论每天都在发生，通常充满激情且极具批判性。我们积极鼓励这些讨论，并认为它们对于做出正确决策至关重要。没有高度的信任，我们无法完成面前的工作。我们将继续对团队犯下善意错误极为宽容。我们从未也不会因为员工提出关切而解雇他们。
- We want to be very clear that these decisions were not about raising safety concerns or speaking out. Safety and research debates happen every day at OpenAI, often spirited and highly critical. We actively encourage these discussions and consider them essential to making the right decisions. We cannot do the work in front of us without a high degree of trust. We will continue to be extremely forgiving of our team making good-faith mistakes. We have not and do not terminate any of our employees for raising concerns.
- 我们正在积极与第三方安全评估机构敲定合同，并将在未来几周内宣布细节。公司上下一直在努力推动这些合作伙伴关系启动和运行。我们致力于引入外部评估机构，并继续将独立安全组织的密切合作作为我们安全工作的核心部分。我们的许多研究人员已经与第三方安全组织进行了富有成效的合作。
- We are actively finalizing contracts with third-party safety assessors and will announce details in the coming weeks. People across the company have been working really hard on getting these partnerships up and running. We are committed to embedding external assessors and continue to make close collaboration with independent safety organizations a core part of our safety work. Many of our researchers already work with 3p safety organizations productively.
- 我们同意该公开信的观点：保持前沿模型的可监控性需要全行业的承诺，包括 OpenAI 在内。可监控性长期以来一直是我们研究计划的核心部分，我们也在持续投入大量资源（参见我们关于 Monitoring Monitorability 的出版物以及随后开源的 monitorability evals、我们为 GPT-6 Astra 编写的系统卡、Jakub 的博客和 X 上的帖子，以及我们 Alignment 博客上关于该主题的大量博文）。
- We agree with the letter that preserving the monitorability of frontier models requires an industry-wide commitment, including from OpenAI. Monitorability has long been a core piece of our research program, and something we continue to invest significant resources in (see our publications on Monitoring Monitorability and the subsequent open sourcing of monitorability evals, our system card for GPT-6 Astra, Jakub's blog and post on X, and the numerous blog posts on our Alignment blog on the topic).
我们对这一结果深感悲痛。我们感谢 Jasmine、Mikita 和 Tomek 在 OpenAI 对 AI 安全所做的贡献，以及他们敢于发声、挑战既有观点的意愿。我们曾为他们发声、支持他们的工作，并给予他们极大的信任。这些决定并非因为他们提出了安全方面的担忧。我们一直鼓励这样做，并将始终如此。
We are deeply sad about this outcome. We appreciated Jasmine, Mikita, and Tomek's contributions to AI safety at OpenAI and their willingness to speak up and challenge ideas. We championed their voices, supported their work, and placed enormous trust in them. These decisions were not about them raising safety concerns. We have always encouraged that and always will.
我们的内部调查发现了一次严重的信任违背，其程度超出了他们公开信中所述的内容，我们坚持不再继续雇用他们的决定。
Our internal investigation uncovered a significant breach of trust beyond what is outlined in the letter they published, and we stand by the decision not to continue their employment.
这里有两个关键的隐含主张，尽管它们在逻辑上并非必然成立。
There are two key implied claims here, although they are not logically forced.
1. 其背后的正当理由依赖于员工未予指明的关键事件。
1. The underlying justification relied on key events not named by the employees.
2. 一个关键的底层正当理由便是这一“严重的信任违背”，无论它究竟指什么。
2. A key underlying justification is this 'significant breach of trust,' whatever that is.
在这两点上我都相信 OpenAI。否则一切就说不通了。
I believe OpenAI on both counts. Nothing else makes sense.
从来就不太可能是三位顶尖安全研究员以三种截然不同的方式集中破坏了信任。更可能的是存在某个特定原因，以及对某个核心原因的一次调查，无论它是什么。
It was never likely that there were three top safety researchers who centrally broke trust in three distinct ways. Much more likely is one particular cause, and one investigation into one central cause, whatever it was.
这并不意味着研究人员做错了什么，也不意味着他们的错误达到了‘你需要被解雇’的程度。这确实意味着，不知何故事情升级到了信任破裂的地步，无论是谁的过错。
That does not mean that the researchers did anything wrong, or that what they did wrong rose to the level of 'you need to be fired.' It does mean that somehow things escalated to the point where trust had broken down, no matter who was at fault.
1. OpenAI 的核心原因（无论好坏、真假）未被分享。
1. OpenAI's core reasons (good or bad, true or false) went unshared.
2. 员工被告知了核心原因，却隐瞒了这一点。
2. The employees were told the core reasons, and are withholding that.
信任不是可选项。如果信任被不可挽回地破坏，你别无选择，无论最初是什么导致了这种破裂。但据我们所知，似乎没有什么事情应该上升到不可挽回地破坏信任的程度。
Trust is not optional. If it is irrevocably broken, you don't have a choice, no matter what caused that break in the first place. But nothing we know about seems like it should rise to a level that should irrevocably break trust.
OpenAI 还表示，他们预计进一步的信息交换不会带来解决方案。我相信他们。OpenAI 收到了员工要求分享更多信息的明确请求，但这并不意味着这样做是明智的。有时候你已经尽力了，但说得更多只会让事情变得更糟。
OpenAI also says that they do not anticipate that further information exchange would lead to a resolution. I believe them. OpenAI has an explicit request from the employees to share more information, but that does not make this wise. Sometimes you are doing your best and yet saying more things would only make things worse.
这并不能让 OpenAI 摆脱如此回避所带来的后果。
That does not get OpenAI out of the consequences of being this avoidant.
该词同时出现在信件与回应中。
The term appears both in the letter and the response.
OpenAI Newsroom 在其回应中表示：“对于团队所犯的善意错误，我们将继续保持极度宽容。”
OpenAI Newsroom says in its response: “We will continue to be extremely forgiving of our team making good-faith mistakes.”
员工信件在谈及 Mikita 时写道：“他自始至终都出于善意行事，并符合公司当时的规范。”
The employee letter says of Mikita: “He acted throughout in good faith and within the company’s norms as they stood at the time.”
Kobeck 和 Wang 所讲述的故事，要么本身是出于恶意讲述的，要么清楚地表明他们在 OpenAI 的行为是出于善意的。
Kobeck and Wang also tell stories that either are themselves told in bad faith, or clearly indicate their actions at OpenAI were in good faith.
唉，要想使用“严重违背信任”这样的说法并得到信任，你的公司过去就不能有过许多“严重违背信任”的行为。
Alas, in order to use terms like 'a significant breach of trust' and be trusted, you need to have not had many 'significant breaches of trust' in your company's past.
Kelsey Piper：OpenAI 强烈反驳称，Jasmine、Mikita 和 Tomek 被解雇的原因并非这三位研究人员昨日所说的他们被告知的原因。
Kelsey Piper: OpenAI emphatically disputes that Jasmine, Mikita and Tomek were fired for the reasons that the three researchers stated yesterday they were given for the firing.
Rob Wiblin：总体而言，这相当令人困惑。似乎他们给出的主要是借口性的理由——但他们表示还对其他一些实质性的事情感到不满。而且他们认为给出真实原因会让公众觉得太难堪，或者对他们造成其他伤害。
Rob Wiblin: Overall it's pretty confusing. It seems like they did give primarily pretextual reasons - but there's something else substantive they're indicating they're upset about. And they think giving the real reason would look too bad to the public, or cause some other harm to them.
这就是为什么你要随着时间的推移建立信任，而不是破坏信任，这样在这些情况下人们才会更倾向于相信你的话。
This is why you want to build up trust over time rather than undermine it, so people are inclined to take you more at your word in these situations.
至少，即使在我们收到被解雇员工的回应之前，我们都可以同意 Joshua Achiam 的观点：除非出现意外的新信息，否则这对 OpenAI 来说是非常糟糕的公关形象，也是一个巨大的实际损失。并不是说解雇这样的人有什么好时机，但这是一个极其糟糕的时机。
At minimum, even before we got the response from the fired employees, we could all agree with Joshua Achiam that, barring unexpected new information, this is a terrible look from OpenAI, as well as a large practical loss. Not that there is a great time to fire such people, but this was an extremely poor time.
Joshua Achiam（前 OpenAI 员工）：我会等待更多信息公布后再形成非常确定的看法，但乍一看，这像是一个真正的乌龙球。
Joshua Achiam (Formerly OpenAI): I’m going to wait for a bit more information to come out before forming a very firm opinion, but at first glance this looks like a real own-goal.
我们正处于一个非常奇怪的历史时刻，关乎对人工超级智能及其安全路径的集体理解，也是一个非常困难的时刻，关乎对 AI 实验室在独立监督和验证方面做正确之事的信任。
We’re in a very strange moment in history around the collective understanding of artificial superintelligence and paths to safety around it, and a very difficult moment for trust in the AI labs to do the right thing where it comes to independent oversight and verification.
公司程序在这里可以（而且显然应该）有一定的灵活性，以适应未来可能被广泛理解为举报的行为。虽然我不认为安全研究人员应该有无限的自由来披露技术秘密，但他们据称“处理不当”的信息的确切类型*非常*重要，我期望看到更详细的说明，说明这些信息据称是什么，以证明如此重大且可能具有破坏性的行动是合理的。
Company procedures can (and somewhat obviously should) have some flexibility here to accommodate actions that might in the future be widely understood as whistleblowing. While I don’t think safety researchers should have infinite latitude to disclose technical secrets, the exact kind of information they allegedly “mishandled” matters *a lot* and I would expect to see a more detailed account of what that information supposedly was to justify an action so enormously consequential and potentially damaging.
有些行动足够重大，你绝对需要在采取行动的瞬间向公众解释。这就是其中之一。如果公司在当时确实对某个问题了解不够，那么它有权说它不知道，并将在 later 发布更多信息；如果公司确实知道，因为这是一个完全在公司内部经过深思熟虑并归公司所有的行动，他们应该在采取行动的同时进行解释。
There are actions that are sufficiently big you absolutely need to explain them to the public the minute you take them. This is one of them. If the company doesn’t actually know enough about an issue at the time, it’s justified in saying that it doesn’t know and it’ll release more information later; if the company does know because it’s an action entirely deliberated within and owned by the company, they should explain it concurrently with taking it.
Seth Lazar：这令人震惊。这也提醒我们，AI 安全和治理的研究必须由那些命运不与 AI 公司的商业成功捆绑的组织来领导，这一点非常重要。大学在这方面未能应对挑战，毫无疑问，但我们正在回来，我希望今天离开 OAI 的人知道，有些机构他们可以在那里做重要的工作而不必担心这类后果。
Seth Lazar: This is shocking. It’s also a reminder that it’s so important that research on AI safety and governance be led by organisations whose fortunes are not tied to the commercial success of the AI companies. Universities have failed to meet the moment here, no doubt about it, but we’re coming back and I hope that the people leaving OAI today know that there are institutions where they can do the work that matters without fearing these kinds of consequences.
在补充信息公布之后，情况看起来更糟了。
In the wake of the additional information, things look worse.
Garrison Lovely：抱歉，你不能说“他们做的事要恶劣得多，我们不能告诉你那是什么，哪怕只是大致说说也不行，相信我们就好”，然后还指望有人信你。如果这仅仅是 OpenAI 的信誉与他们的信誉之间的对比，那这是世界上最容易做的判断。
Garrison Lovely: I'm sorry, you don't get to say, 'they did way worse stuff, we can't tell you what it was, even in a general sense, just trust us,' and expect anyone to believe you. If it's just OpenAI's credibility against theirs, that's the easiest call in the world.
Raemon：看起来“我们已经把可能性收窄到：要么他们在公然撒谎，要么 OpenAI 在公然撒谎”，这样说对吗？（尽管可能还有一些他们未公开的额外事实，在某些方面可能让他们显得不利？）
Raemon: Seems like "we have narrowed the worlds to where either they are blatantly lying, or OpenAI is" — does that sound right? (Although there could still be additional facts that they are not sharing that might make them look bad in some ways?)
我不认为这是严格必需的——如果存在充分的沟通失灵，这取决于你如何看待针对被解雇一事所给出的不完整解释。
I don't think this is strictly required, if there were sufficient communication breakdowns, depending on how you view incomplete explanations for being fired.
Zach Stein-Perlman：我一直保留判断，直到今天——我原本认为，这三个人确实可能违反了保密规定，或故意向 METR 泄露信息，并因此被解雇，这种可能性是存在的。但基于这些消息、其他公开信息（或缺乏公开信息），以及 OpenAI 一而再、再而三公然撒谎的过往记录，我目前的猜测是：他们的说法是真的，他们是因为借口性理由被解雇的。如果真是这样，那对 OpenAI 来说非常糟糕。（显然，如果这些消息具有误导性，我仍然对事实感兴趣。）
Zach Stein-Perlman: I reserved judgment until today — I thought it was plausible that these three did mess up confidentiality or intentionally leak stuff to METR and were fired for that. But based on these messages, other public info (or lack thereof), and OpenAI's track record of blatantly lying over and over, my current guess is that their messages are true and they were fired for pretextual reasons. If so, that's really bad from OpenAI. (Obviously I'm still interested in the facts if the messages are misleading.)
Kelsey Piper：上周我说过，我们应该等待更多关于 OpenAI 解雇安全研究人员的信息。现在信息已经来了，而且看起来非常糟糕。Korbak——他的工作是担任与 METR 的联络人——被告知他对 METR 说得太多，并因此被解雇。
Kelsey Piper: Last week I said we should wait for more info on OpenAI's firing of safety researchers. That information is in, and it looks incredibly bad. Korbak — whose job was being a liaison with METR — was told he had said too much to METR and was fired for that reason.
如果他们是因为在职责范围之外的沟通——即使是出于好意或举报——而被解雇，那还情有可原。但如果他们是因为*对作为其工作职责所应交谈的外部调查人员说得太多*而被解雇，那就真的令人愤慨了。
If they had been fired for communications, even well-intentioned or whistleblowy, outside the scope of their jobs, that'd be one thing. But if they were fired for *saying too much to the external investigators it was their job to talk to*, well, that is really outrageous.
这显然导致，当 OpenAI 宣布他们正在与监管机构或审计机构进行外部调查时，所有与这些监管机构和审计机构合作的人都明白，如果审计机构或监管机构了解得太多，他们就会被解雇。
This obviously makes it so that when OpenAI announces they're conducting an external investigation with regulators or auditors, everyone working with those regulators and auditors understands they'll be fired if the auditors or regulators learn too much.
在许多行业中，灾难性安全事件的上游，你经常会看到工程师们害怕如果他们对安全流程提出担忧——即使通过适当的渠道——就会失去工作。
Upstream of catastrophic safety incidents across many industries, you often see engineers who are scared they'll lose their jobs if they raise — even though appropriate channels — concerns about safety processes.
如果你在 OpenAI 工作，我不认为你读了这些解雇的报道后，会得出除了“如果你直言不讳地谈论安全，他们就会找理由解雇你，而你在作为联络人的官方角色中所说的话也算数”之外的任何结论。
If you work at OpenAI, I don't see how you read the accounts of these firings and come away with any takeaway other than 'if you're vocal about safety, they'll be looking for a reason to fire you, and things you say in your official role as a liaison count.'
显而易见的替代假设是‘心怀不满的员工因被解雇而愤怒’，但 Kelsey Piper 说她认识三个人中的两个，情况并非如此：
The obvious alternative hypothesis is ‘disgruntled employees mad over being fired’ but Kelsey Piper says she knows two of the three and this is not like that:
Kelsey Piper：另一件事是注意到模式。每家公司都会有一个心怀不满的前员工，讲述自己如何受到不公。通常那个人是……某种类型，而且对其他雇主也有抱怨。
Kelsey Piper: The other thing is noticing patterns. Every company will have one disgruntled ex-employee with a story about how they were wronged. Often that person is...a type, and also has complaints about other employers.
我熟悉这些（显然是三起无关的）事件中被解雇的三个人中的两个。据我所知，他们不是那种类型。而且，如果 OAI 在这三起事件中同时都占理却看起来理亏且无法解释，那会很奇怪。
I am familiar with two of the three people fired in these (apparently three unrelated) incidents. They're not that type, to my knowledge. And it'd be weird for OAI to have ended up justified but looking bad and unable to explain in all three of these cases simultaneously.
所以我的经验法则是：给双方一些时间分享背景。非常重视人们的过往记录和品格。记住我们始终只能看到整个故事的一小部分——但不要让这一点妨碍我们得出任何结论。
So my rule of thumb is: give both sides some time to share context. Put a lot of weight on people's track records and character. Keep in mind we only ever have a slice of the whole story - but don't let that get in the way of ever concluding anything.
Naomi Bashkansky：哇。我一直欣赏 OpenAI 鼓励透明度的倾向。显然在法律上这很难，但不良氛围（尤其是在安全方面）可能比被起诉的风险更糟……
Naomi Bashkansky: Wow. I'd always appreciated OpenAI's tendency to encourage transparency. Obviously legally this is hard here, but bad vibes (especially in safety) can be worse than the risk of being sued...
我对 Jasmine 评价很高。她不再在 OpenAI，这对 OpenAI 来说是一个损失。
I think very highly of Jasmine. It's a loss to OpenAI that she's no longer there.
Jeremy Howard：旁白：事实上，他并不被允许说“我对 OpenAI 的许多做法相当不满。”
Jeremy Howard: Narrator: he was not, in fact, allowed to say “I’m quite unhappy with much of what OpenAI does.”
Seán Ó hÉigeartaigh：好了，我听够了。对 OpenAI 严加监管。这不是可信的行为。
Seán Ó hÉigeartaigh: Ok, I've heard enough. Regulate the hell out of OpenAI. This is not trustworthy conduct.
我试图给予善意的理解，但关于 OpenAI 的这类故事实在太多太多了，而且有太多前员工讲述相互吻合的故事，这不可能是巧合。
I try to give benefit of the doubt, but there have been far, far, far too many of these stories with OpenAI, and far too many former employees telling stories that match for it to be chance.
Alex Turner：> 违反了明确政策
Alex Turner: > violated clear policies
不愿说明这些政策究竟是什么
won't say what the policies are
“与提出安全关切无关”
"not about raising safety concerns"
不否认因他与第三方安全组织接触而将其解雇
doesn't deny firing him for talking to third-party safety orgs
我们优先考虑可监控性
we prioritize monitorability
部署并从一款破坏可监控性趋势的模型中获利
deploys and profits from a model that destroys monitorability trends
Neel Nanda（Google DeepMind）：我实在看不出 OpenAI 在此事上的行为有什么正当理由。
Neel Nanda (Google DeepMind): I can't really see a world where OpenAI's actions are justified here.
与 METR 沟通本是 Tomek 的职责，而 METR 当时获得了前所未有的重大权限来撰写 HuggingFace 报告。相关规范尚未确立。即便他犯了严重错误，也只需给予严厉警告，并禁止他担任涉及与第三方联络的职务即可；他做过许多其他有价值的工作，而且这样一来他也不再有机会借职务之便不当泄露信息。
It was Tomek's job to communicate with METR, who were being given significant, unprecedented access to do the HuggingFace report. The norms were not set. Even if he fucked up badly, just give him a stern warning and ban him from roles involving liaising with third parties; he did lots of other valuable work, and there'd no longer be room for him to inappropriately leak as part of his job.
在我看来，因一个人在全新且不确定的情境下善意地运用最佳判断而将其解雇，是一种极不健康文化的表现。解雇他将对 OpenAI 其他与第三方合作的人产生寒蝉效应——而 Sam 刚刚宣布要派驻拥有高权限的评估者，这一选择颇为奇怪。
IMO firing people over a good faith attempt to use their best judgement in a novel and uncertain situation is a sign of a highly unhealthy culture. Firing him will have a chilling effect on anyone else at OpenAI working with third parties, an odd choice when Sam announced they'd embed evaluators with high access.
我另外认为这是一场悲剧：METR 报告是今年最重要的安全研究工作之一，因 Tomek 参与其中而惩罚他，并使未来此类报告更难出现，实在令人遗憾。
I separately consider this a tragedy: the METR report was one of the most important works of safety this year, and punishing Tomek for being a part of it, and making it harder for future such reports to exist, is a real shame.
当然，我只听到了 Tomek 一方的说法，但除非他在 outright 撒谎，我实在难以看出这件事对 OpenAI 有什么好处？
Of course, I've only heard Tomek's side, but unless he's outright lying I'm struggling to see ways this looks good for OpenAI?
Daniel Eth（AI 安全）：OpenAI 被指的这种行为令人极度担忧。OpenAI 欠世界一个解释。
Daniel Eth (AI Safety): This alleged behavior from OpenAI is incredibly concerning. OpenAI owes the world an explanation here.
Steven Adler：啊？？@OpenAI，你们欠世界一个关于这里到底发生了什么的好得多的解释。
Steven Adler: Huh?? @OpenAI, you owe the world a much better explanation of what happened here.
Tomek、Mikita 和 Jasmine 表示他们没有做错任何事，并邀请你们在情况并非如此时公布细节。
Tomek, Mikita, and Jasmine say they did nothing wrong and are inviting you to share the details if that's incorrect.
所以——我在等。他们到底做了什么才被解雇？
So — I'm waiting. What did they do to get fired?
dave kasten：看，这很简单。我要么相信 OpenAI 的领导层——他们曾就“NSA 是否属于 DoW”这样基本的事实，公然且莫名其妙地对我撒谎——要么相信这三名员工。我该选哪一个？
dave kasten: Look, it's very simple. I either believe OpenAI leadership, who have blatantly and inexplicably lied to me about facts as basic as, "is NSA part of DoW", or I believe the three employees. Which one should I choose?
Nathan Calvin：对 OpenAI 这份声明的一些观察和反应：
Nathan Calvin: Some observations and reactions to this statement from OpenAI:
• 从被解雇员工的公开通讯来看，他们似乎不明白自己为什么被解雇（他们离职前得到的理由说不通）。
• From the fired employees' public communications, they seem to not understand why they were fired (the reasons they were given prior to their departure don't make sense).
• OpenAI 在这份说明中表示“我们将继续对团队犯下的善意错误极其宽容”，这暗示涉事员工并非出于善意行事。
• OpenAI says in this note that "We will continue to be extremely forgiving of our team making good-faith mistakes" which implies that the employees in question were not acting in good faith.
• 我之前曾评论过，尽管我与 OpenAI 有诸多分歧，但我真心钦佩他们员工可以自由谈论工作和关切的强大文化。我担心这些员工被解雇的模糊情况可能会危及这种文化。
• I have previously commented that despite all my disagreements with OpenAI, I have genuinely admired their strong culture of staff speaking freely about their work and concerns. I am worried that the hazy circumstances around the firing of these employees risks jeopardizing that culture.
• OpenAI 似乎在说，出于善意行事的员工不必担心他们的活动（包括安全方面的工作）受到抑制。但被解雇的员工坚称他们的行为“符合 OpenAI 的使命”并且“符合当时的工作规范”。如果 OpenAI 认为这些规范需要改变，那么他们可以做出那个决定（或者，如果他们对员工关于其行为符合当时规范的说法有异议，他们可以明说）。但似乎很明显，除非内部提供更多的澄清，否则员工可能会合理地回应以退缩，并停止参与一个月前还被视为正常和良好的公开对话与合作。
• OpenAI seems to be saying that employees who are acting in good faith need not be worried about having their activities, including around safety work, chilled. But the fired employees are adamant that their actions were taken "in line with OpenAI's mission" and "within the working norms at the time." If OpenAI believes those norms need to shift, then they can make that decision (or if they dispute the employees' claims that their actions were within the norms at the time, they can say so). But it seems clear that unless much more clarity is being provided internally, employees may reasonably respond by drawing back and ceasing to engage in open dialogue and collaboration that a month ago was considered normal and good.
有许多人将这三人称为吹哨人。我们不知道这是否属实，因为我并没有听到任何哨声，也没有听到有人声称自己吹过哨？但显然，这种模式暗示了一种担忧。
There are many calling these three whistleblowers. We do not know that this is true, given I do not hear any blown whistles or claims to having blown one? But certainly the pattern suggests a concern.
Ro Khanna：这就是为什么国会需要通过一项吹哨人保护法案，保护像 Jasmine 这样的 AI 员工免受报复和欺凌。
Ro Khanna: This is why Congress needs to pass a whistleblower protection act that protects AI employees like Jasmine from retaliation and bullying.
Jeffrey Ladish：是的，完全正确。
Jeffrey Ladish: Yes, exactly.
dave kasten：有趣的是，我从未遇到过任何一位 AI 公司员工记得曾接受过简报或看到过海报，告知他们作为吹哨人的权利或美国政府欺诈、浪费和滥用热线，尽管这是法律对所有政府承包商的要求。
dave kasten: Fun fact, I’ve literally never met an AI company employee who remembers ever receiving a briefing, or seeing a poster, informing them of their whistleblower rights or the US govt Fraud, Waste, and Abuse hotlines, despite that being legally required for all govt contractors.
他们对自己权利的了解还不如我 23 岁在 Booz Allen 工作时多。
They have less awareness of their rights than I did as a 23-year-old working at Booz Allen.
（平心而论，确实存在一种模糊的可能性：AI 公司的员工只是随手点开了一场网络研讨会，并没有认真听。但那样反而更糟。你明白为什么那样更糟，对吧？）
(To be fair, it’s vaguely possible AI company employees clicked through a webinar without paying attention. But that’s worse. You get why that’s worse, right?)
Nate Soares（MIRI）：OpenAI 解雇其 METR 联络人，理由是他以不具体的方式与 METR 沟通不当，这听起来相当离谱。
Nate Soares (MIRI): Firing OpenAI’s METR liaison because he nonspecifically talked to METR wrong sounds pretty messed up.
没有任何技术人员或高管公开谈论过此事。
No members of technical staff, or executives, have spoken about this in public.
更令人不安的是，面对一起可能产生寒蝉效应的事件，除 Dean Ball 之外，我长期关注的许多 OpenAI 人士几乎无人在 Twitter 上就几乎任何话题发声——当然也有例外。在我所见过的表态中，没有一条有任何争议性或锋芒。
Far more troubling, in response to an event that has a potential chilling effect, there are exceptions but almost none of the many people I keep tabs on from OpenAI other than Dean Ball are saying anything on Twitter at all, about almost any subject. Of the statements I have seen, none are at all controversial or frisky.
Jai：OpenAI 的人们，如果曾经有过一个时刻能证明公开表达分歧这一文化规范是真实存在的，那就是现在。
Jai: OpenAI people, if there was ever a time to prove that that cultural norm of openly posting disagreement is real, this is it.
OpenAI 离开了自己的人就什么都不是。
OpenAI is nothing without its people.
我完全不怪 OpenAI 的员工。情况很复杂，有很多我们不知道的事。在事情于内部逐步明朗的过程中，公开保持沉默是非常合理的做法。但这份沉默依然震耳欲聋。
I do not at all blame the OpenAI employees for this. The situation is complicated, with much we do not know. Public silence is a highly reasonable move while things play out internally. The silence is still deafening.
我不同意但确实存在的观点：甚至有人——比如 Arjun Panickssery 和 charding——认为，所给出的理由看起来像明显的借口，这是一种特性而非缺陷。按照这一理论，如果你给出一个看似合理的借口，人们可能会相信它，那就会破坏制造寒蝉效应的目的。
Opinions I disagree with but that are out there: There are even those, like Arjun Panickssery and charding, who think that the reported reasons looking like obvious pretexts is a feature rather than a bug. Under this theory, if you gave a plausible pretext, people might believe it, and that would defeat the purpose of creating a chilling effect.
charding：OpenAI 在它所说的和它想要的之间存在很大差距。如果你领导一个组织，你说的是一回事，想要的却是另一回事，你就会遇到问题：有时，员工会照你说的做，而不是照你真正想要的做！
charding: OpenAI has a large gap between what they say and what they want. If you lead an organization and you say one thing but want another, you'll have a problem: Sometimes, employees will do what you said, not what you actually wanted!
诚然，这种情况令人困惑。不过，公司有一些办法可以帮助员工领会。例如，在因员工做了公司所要求的事而解雇他们时，公司可以给出一些解雇理由，这些理由除了是借口之外，还是*明显的*借口。这样，更多员工就能领会其中的信息。
This kind of situation is admittedly confusing. However, there are some ways the company can help employees learn. For example, when firing people for doing what the company asked, the company can mention reasons for termination that, beyond being pretenses, are *obvious* pretenses. Then more employees will get the message.
也许某个员工打开了错误的邮件。这是一个合适的借口。公司当然可以为解雇该员工编造更可信的理由，但那样对公司更不利。那样的话，其他员工可能又会困惑。他们可能又回去照公司说的做，而不是照公司想要的做。
Maybe an employee opened the wrong email. That's a suitable pretense. The company could come up with more plausible reasons for firing the employee, yes, but that would be worse for the company. Then, other employees might get confused again. They might go back to doing what the company says, instead of what it wants.
再次强调，这些反应对于任何相关方来说都不应感到意外。这件事看起来一直都会显得相当糟糕。如果 OpenAI 有办法让它看起来不那么糟糕，并且能够分享出来，我们早就应该知道了。
Again, these reactions should not come as a surprise to anyone involved. This was always going to look pretty damn messed up. If OpenAI had a way to make it look not pretty damn messed up, that it was able to share, we would know about it by now.
我不认为被解雇的员工在欺骗我们。我看不出他们有什么理由这样做，而且如果他们在离职会议的事情上撒谎，OpenAI 有能力反驳这一点。如果情况属实，这意味着 OpenAI 至少在沟通方面严重失职，无论是对员工还是对公众，即使我们尽可能宽容。让这些明显是借口的解释成为员工被告知内容的说法，这本身就非常非常糟糕，无论背后的事实如何。
I do not believe the fired employees are lying to us. I see no reason for them to be doing that, and if they are lying about the exit meetings then OpenAI has the ability to contradict this. If that is correct it means that OpenAI at minimum massively dropped the ball on its communications, both to the employees and to the public, even if we are otherwise maximally charitable. Allowing such obviously pretextual explanations to become the story of what the employees were told is just so, so bad on its own, no matter the underlying facts.
我确实认为许多人都跳到了“最混乱”的解释上，而我觉得这不太可能成立，因为其中涉及激励因素。
I do think many are jumping to a ‘maximally messed up’ interpretation that I find unlikely to be true, because of the incentives involved.
以下是一些使情况不至于最糟糕的因素：
Here are some things that make the situation less than maximally terrible:
1. 我相信 OpenAI 解雇这些员工并非因为他们公开或内部表达了对安全的担忧。
1. I believe that OpenAI did NOT fire these employees due to their publicly or internally expressed concerns about safety.
2. 我相信 OpenAI 解雇这些员工并非因为他们倡导第三方承诺或第三方审计员或嵌入式评估员。
2. I believe that OpenAI did NOT fire these employees due to their advocacy of 3P commitments or third party auditors or embedded evaluators.
3. 我相信 OpenAI 解雇这些员工并非为了制造寒蝉效应或减少员工与第三方的合作。
3. I believe that OpenAI did NOT fire these employees in order to create a chilling effect or reduce employee cooperation with third parties.
这仍然让我们得不到一个好的解释，而且很可能永远得不到，同时还要面对三名员工声称——我相信他们是真诚的——自己因倡导安全而被解雇。鉴于三人长期以来良好且正面的履历，这充其量是一个巨大的非受迫性失误，即便 OpenAI 出于某种原因被迫在这件事上认栽。而这又加入了长长一串彼此押韵的事件之列。
That still leaves us without a good explanation, probably permanently, and with the three employees claiming, I believe sincerely, that they were fired for their safety advocacy. Given the long and positive track record of all three of them, this was at best a huge unforced error, even if OpenAI was for whatever reason backed into taking an L on this. And it goes into a long line of incidents that rhyme.