Browse Comments — Raw (as collected)

TBF, I can't think of a single company I would trust to self-regulate on anything. AI just happens to be the worst offender right now.

Self regulating is a disaster waiting to happen. The FAA has been teaching us that. That's also why QA departments report directly to the CEO of better organized companies as compared with Manufacturing. The inherent conflict of that will ultimately yield "good enough" which isn't.

Chris Olah saying publicly that competitive pressure, capital pressure, and geopolitical pressure push AI labs in directions that can conflict with doing the right thing — that's not a philosophical observation. That's a structural admission that external governance is load bearing, not optional. For healthcare organizations making AI procurement decisions right now, that statement should change how they evaluate vendor accountability. A vendor whose own co-founder acknowledges these incentive conflicts exists is a vendor whose contractual governance requirements, audit trail provisions, and human override protocols need to be airtight before a single patient record touches their system. The trust problem isn't theoretical. One of the architects of the technology just confirmed it from the Vatican. That's about as public as a warning gets.

To the surprise of no one since its being forced on us in every facet of living.

"My dog sometimes bites. I'm trying to train him not to, so please don't trust him until he fully learns. He's just a baby." -Chris Olah

“He” understands the power of AI and how it can be manipulated for the wrong reasons!

This is the responsible thing to do, and other frontier labs and politicians should be lining up behind them. The climate change parallel is sobering. In both cases, the people closest to the science sounded the alarm while political and economic systems moved far too slowly. The difference with AI is the timescale. Climate change unfolded over decades, and AI disruption could compress that into years. Olah's candour is valuable precisely because it comes from inside. But candour without structural change is just confession.

One of the clearest signs AI has become a civilizational issue: Religious institutions are now publicly shaping the conversation around it.

From my understanding, AI should not replace people, rather it should free up people to do what they do best: solving the world's unique problems and exercising the freedom to innovate. I appreciate Olah's honesty. However, in my opinion, handing over AI governance to governments have the potential to do more harm than good. If any government turns against its own people, this technology can destroy humanity resulting in the manipulation of information and distortion of facts in global proportions. For me, the best option is to let the markets handle it. Like Healthcare systems who have Compliance and Cybersecurity governance to set up frameworks to safeguard patient information, enterprises who operate AI labs should have similar governance standards that keep innovation within bounds. It's not perfect but I prefer this option over trusting governments with governing information to this degree. Olah's right, people shouldn't be trusted. Much more so with governments, just saying.

Great to see Anthropic taking a lead here and consulting sources of wisdom to guide AI adoption across a broad ideological spectrum. The real question is, is it all fluff or are they going to back it up with serious business strategy and values?

This is the part that matters most for enterprise governance. The issue is not whether a particular lab is well-intentioned. Some clearly are. The issue is that good intentions do not neutralize the incentive structure. If frontier AI labs operate under commercial pressure, capital pressure, geopolitical pressure, and speed-to-market pressure, then enterprise buyers should not treat vendor assurances as a complete governance basis. That does not mean AI should not be adopted. It means adoption has to be authorized against present capability, disclosed limitations, model-change risk, output-shaping controls, and the actual conditions under which reliance is justified. Self-governance is not enough when the market is also selling the reliance. I wrote about this from the adoption-integrity side here: https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/real-ai-risk-sell-just-system-paul-mcdonald-bqave The market is selling the projection. The law has to make them show the machinery.

AI should remove friction from human work, not turn humans into accessories for machine efficiency.

So true and the U.S. government can't be trusted to hold all the leverage.

To me it does not look like anything will change with Ai "because that's where the money is. "

The danger is not that AI suddenly becomes anti-human. The danger is colder than that: institutions may use AI to make human needs machine-legible, then mistake that legibility for truth. Safety becomes risk scoring. Belonging becomes engagement management. Esteem becomes reputation analytics. Judgment becomes workflow compliance. Purpose becomes another managed service. That is when AI stops being a tool and becomes an operating theology. The machine does not need to hate humanity to reduce it. It only needs to optimize around the wrong definition of value. https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/maslow-stack-ihab-osman-ohk5c

Happy Memorial Day If you are tired of doing ai alone, you're personally invited to join our community event this Tue May 26 at 7:30 AM CST. Let's exit the matrix and connect with new ways of working together; grounded in love, not fear. Want to be a speaker or leader? Just drop your comment below and we'll save you a seat. First, please take a minute to fill out our quick assessment so we can better support you https://www.nothingai888.com Questions? Reach out to Jason Esler Link To The Event Below https://www.linkedin.com/events/7464110880893341697/?viewAsMember=true

I’ve sat in alignment meetings where an engineering team flagged a subtle vector bias in a model pipeline, only to be told by product marketing that delaying the rollout would cost us our quarterly enterprise contracts. That is the exact corporate bias Chris Olah is warning us about in the Reuters brief. You cannot let the entities chasing a multi-trillion-dollar commercial window be the sole auditors of their own systemic risk. When a tech giant's primary fiduciary duty is to Wall Street, "AI Safety" will always be downgraded from an architectural constraint to a public relations line-item. If we don’t fund and institutionalize independent, external cryptographic and behavioral validation outside the Silicon Valley monopoly, we aren't building a safe ecosystem. We are just renting a black box from companies that are incentivized to hide the telemetry logs when things go sideways.

Interesting point. External oversight matters, but I think the next challenge is what kind of working systems we build around AI itself. AI should optimize for what it does best: processing information and handling scale. Humans should be freed to do what humans do best: judgment, creativity, trust, and meaning. We have a unique opportunity right now to build systems where both operate in their strengths rather than creating environments where people slowly become operators inside an efficiency machine.

Jeremy Springfield while agree with you, you must remember the past (before Trump), the Boeing debacle of the Max jet (and Other Boeing issues). The FAA needs MORE funding, not less to work as intended.

I'm too tired. I'm not get ready to remember anything.