A group of crypto companies, including Coinbase, Block, and BitGo, has signed a letter to leading AI labs arguing that safety guardrails on frontier models are blocking legitimate security work. The letter, backed by dozens of other firms, contends that attackers face no such limits from the same guardrails.
Translation:包括Coinbase、Block和BitGo在内的一组加密公司已签署致领先AI实验室的信函，认为前沿模型上的安全护栏阻碍了合法的安全工作。该信函得到数十家其他公司的支持，声称攻击者不会受到相同护栏的限制。
The Core Complaint
->核心投诉
or better:核心问题
? "Complaint" might be 抱怨 or 投诉, but in context it's the main argument. Perhaps "核心论点" but it's "complaint" - I'll use "核心不满" or "核心问题". Let's use "核心论点" since it's an argument. Actually, the heading says "The Core Complaint" - I'll translate as "核心投诉" but that sounds like complaint. Maybe "核心关切" is better. I'll go with "核心问题" to be neutral. But to be consistent, I'll use "核心投诉" because it's a complaint. However, in Chinese news, "投诉" is formal. I'll use "核心关切" which is common. Let's decide: "核心关切" is fine. But let's check: The letter is arguing, so it's a complaint. I'll use "核心关切" as it's more natural. I'll translate:核心关切
Next paragraph:The letter's central argument is that the safety measures built into advanced AI systems are hampering security researchers and other legitimate users. These guardrails, designed to prevent misuse, are also blocking efforts to test, probe, and defend against real threats. Meanwhile, the letter says, adversaries face no such limits — they can exploit the same models without worrying about safety constraints.
Translation:信函的核心论点是，先进AI系统内置的安全措施正在阻碍安全研究人员和其他合法用户。这些旨在防止滥用的护栏，同时也阻碍了测试、探测和防御真实威胁的努力。与此同时，信函指出，对手不受此类限制——他们可以在不担心安全约束的情况下利用相同的模型。
Who Signed On
->签署方
or谁签署了
? Better:签署名单
or simply签署方
. I'll use签署方
. Paragraph:Coinbase, Block, and BitGo are among the signatories, joined by dozens of other companies from the crypto and digital asset space. The letter does not name the specific AI labs it's addressed to, but it's aimed at the developers of frontier models — the most powerful and capable AI systems.
Translation:Coinbase、Block和BitGo是签署方之一，还有数十家来自加密和数字资产领域的公司加入。信函没有指明所针对的具体AI实验室，但目标是前沿模型的开发者——即最强大、能力最强的AI系统。
The Asymmetry Problem
->不对称问题
or不对称性
. I'll use不对称问题
. Paragraph:The letter highlights an asymmetry: defenders are forced to work within safety guardrails, while attackers operate without them. That means security professionals can't fully test models for vulnerabilities, while malicious actors can freely probe for weaknesses. The signatories argue this puts the entire ecosystem at risk.
Translation:信函强调了一种不对称性：防御者被迫在安全护栏内工作，而攻击者则在没有护栏的情况下运作。这意味着安全专业人员无法全面测试模型的漏洞，而恶意行为者可以自由地探测弱点。签署方认为这使整个生态系统面临风险。
Next paragraph:The letter is a direct appeal to AI labs to reconsider how they implement safety measures. The companies behind it are not asking for guardrails to be scrapped, but they're making the case that a blanket approach doesn't work for security work. Without the ability to stress-test models, they argue, the very systems meant to be safe become more vulnerable.
Translation:这封信函直接呼吁AI实验室重新考虑其实施安全措施的方式。背后的公司并非要求取消护栏，而是主张一刀切的方法不适用于安全工作。他们认为，如果没有压力测试模型的能力，原本旨在安全的系统反而变得更加脆弱。
Last paragraph:The letter is now in the hands of the AI labs. Whether they'll adjust their guardrails in response is the next question.
Translation:信函现已交到AI实验室手中。他们是否会相应调整护栏，是下一个问题。
Now meta description: Original: "Coinbase, Block, BitGo and dozens of crypto firms signed a letter to AI labs, arguing safety guardrails block security work while attackers face no limits." Translation: "Coinbase、Block、BitGo及数十家加密公司签署致AI实验室的信函，认为安全护栏阻碍安全工作，而攻击者不受限制。" Now we need to output JSON with title, content (full article with HTML), and meta.description. We'll put the content as a single string with the HTML tags. Let's assemble the content:包括Coinbase、Block和BitGo在内的一组加密公司已签署致领先AI实验室的信函，认为前沿模型上的安全护栏阻碍了合法的安全工作。该信函得到数十家其他公司的支持，声称攻击者不会受到相同护栏的限制。
核心关切
信函的核心论点是，先进AI系统内置的安全措施正在阻碍安全研究人员和其他合法用户。这些旨在防止滥用的护栏，同时也阻碍了测试、探测和防御真实威胁的努力。与此同时，信函指出，对手不受此类限制——他们可以在不担心安全约束的情况下利用相同的模型。
签署方
Coinbase、Block和BitGo是签署方之一，还有数十家来自加密和数字资产领域的公司加入。信函没有指明所针对的具体AI实验室，但目标是前沿模型的开发者——即最强大、能力最强的AI系统。
不对称问题
信函强调了一种不对称性：防御者被迫在安全护栏内工作，而攻击者则在没有护栏的情况下运作。这意味着安全专业人员无法全面测试模型的漏洞，而恶意行为者可以自由地探测弱点。签署方认为这使整个生态系统面临风险。
这封信函直接呼吁AI实验室重新考虑其实施安全措施的方式。背后的公司并非要求取消护栏，而是主张一刀切的方法不适用于安全工作。他们认为，如果没有压力测试模型的能力，原本旨在安全的系统反而变得更加脆弱。
信函现已交到AI实验室手中。他们是否会相应调整护栏，是下一个问题。
