Raw LLM Responses
Inspect the exact model output for any coded comment.
Look up by comment ID
Random samples — click to inspect
in
This is exactly the point: recursive self-improvement is not only a technical qu…
7468703210942…
in
Congratulations Demis! We’re working on a new AI cognition model that represents…
7463652979850…
in
The spin class economy is more plausible than I'm comfortable admitting. But the…
7464527161509…
in
Pradeep Sanyal You just defined the exact battlefield of next-gen AI Governance,…
7463581957491…
in
The truth exists. Every religion has books full of truth and people who don’t ac…
7465049810795…
in
I think we are entering the “adoption race.” This brand is better than that one.…
7467018236102…
in
People need to relax a bit. Elon isn't even close to the richest person in the w…
7464968330307…
in
A really important perspective on how AI is changing the value of work rather th…
7466149909025…
Comment
Matthew Kilkenny Thank you Matthew. Roman Yampolski says AI safety is unsolvable even with decades of research and billions invested. He’s right about the angle—but the angle is wrong. Post-hoc governance of systems already capable of acting becomes intractable under capability scaling. That’s the wall he’s hitting. The impossibility pattern inverts the problem: authority-bearing execution becomes structurally impossible unless admissibility is deterministically certified at commitment. You don’t control what’s already capable. You structure the boundary so capacity doesn’t exist until conditions verify. The Vatican faces the same challenge. Unless they’re examining the execution boundary as the control mechanism itself, they’ll hit Yampolski’s wall too. Most governance assumes managing increasingly capable systems through oversight and accountability. Those matter downstream. But execution-boundary governance answers what appears unsolvable everywhere else—not how to control what’s already capable, but how to structure systems so effect-bearing execution is impossible unless valid admissibility exists at commitment.
LinkedIn
AI Safety & Risk
Influencing AI safety at the execution boundary…
2026-05-27T03:1…
Coding Result
| Dimension | Value |
|---|---|
| Primary value | safety |
| Secondary value | accountability |
| Alignment target | humanity |
| Stance | skeptical |
| Emotion | mixed |
| Value justification | The speaker emphasizes the importance of AI safety and highlights the limitations of post-hoc governance, suggesting that safety is a primary concern. |
| Target justification | The speaker discusses the challenges of AI governance in a general sense, implying that the target of alignment is humanity as a whole, rather than a specific group or organization. |
| Coded at | 2026-06-11T08:20:28Z |
Raw LLM Response
```
{
"value_primary": "safety",
"value_secondary": "accountability",
"target": "humanity",
"stance": "skeptical",
"emotion": "mixed",
"value_justification": "The speaker emphasizes the importance of AI safety and highlights the limitations of post-hoc governance, suggesting that safety is a primary concern.",
"target_justification": "The speaker discusses the challenges of AI governance in a general sense, implying that the target of alignment is humanity as a whole, rather than a specific group or organization."
}
```