Arvind Narayanan(@random_walker):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"

2026.10.06 11:40

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"