[tucnak]

What do you mean fun to speculate? I think there's no doubt that Toner is not for real and Georgetown Center for Security and Emerging Technology smells fine, too, I mean their mission is quite literally "Providing decision-makers with data-driven analysis on the security implications of emerging technologies." And it's not even much of a secret that she's reportedly wielding "influence comparable to USAF colonel"[1]. What's unknown is what role she— as a government agent— played in exploiting Sutskever and the board and to what exact end?

[1]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38330158#38330819

[Apocryphon]

I thought the speculation was that McCauley was the government agent, not Toner?

[tucnak]

Not that I'm aware, please share if there's useful input! Have you read the thread that I linked to? This particular communication had me convinced, look up OP.

[Apocryphon]

She works for the RAND Corporation...

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38309920

I've read the thread you linked to, it sure sounds interesting but I have insufficient knowledge to weigh in either way. And the rebuttal about the abundance of USAF Colonels also makes sense.

[tucnak]

I believe that her military rank or equivalent thereof is inconsequential; for one, I would agree that it's nothing terribly impressive. What is telling, however, is the surrounding discourse, how the AI safety circles assess these people and their motivation; it is absolutely clear that these AI people are completely aware of it, moreover you get AI startup CEOs actively _bragging_ about meeting the spooks and their agents. And this signal is so much more telling than anything else you would be able to pick up, IMO.