I agree on abandoning various specifics, but I would note that the new standard is much more specific (less vague) on what needs to be defended against and what the validation process and threat modeling process should be.
(E.g., rather than “non-state actors”, the RSP more specifically says which groups are and aren’t in scope.)
I overall think the new proposal is notably less vague on the most important aspects, though I agree it won’t pass the LeCun test due to insufficiently precise guidance around auditing. Hopefully this can be improved with future version or for future ASLs.
I agree on abandoning various specifics, but I would note that the new standard is much more specific (less vague) on what needs to be defended against and what the validation process and threat modeling process should be.
(E.g., rather than “non-state actors”, the RSP more specifically says which groups are and aren’t in scope.)
I overall think the new proposal is notably less vague on the most important aspects, though I agree it won’t pass the LeCun test due to insufficiently precise guidance around auditing. Hopefully this can be improved with future version or for future ASLs.