Honestly, who do you think is qualified?

Reddit r/ArtificialInteligence 09/15/26, 06:21 PM News

Summary

The article discusses the need for an independent entity to define AI rules, with the author arguing that Andrew Ng is qualified due to his extensive work and influence in AI education and collaborations.

Given the recent discussions regarding the future of AI. Some agreed, and others disagreed; however, many were arguing about who should call the shots. It certainly can't be the two heavily funded AI Labs; rather, it should be some trusted outsider without any investment in either that holds THEM accountable. As the next few days are going to decide how we are going to move forward, one question remains: Who gets to define the Rules of AI? - Personally, I think it should be Andrew Ng. Aside from his massive resume, there isn't a person on the internet who has done even half of the collabs that he has done with many companies working on AI to bring us tools, techniques, and much more. His short courses can still be accessed through the free tier. What about you, who do you think that should get to define the Rules of AI, and why?

Original Article

Similar Articles

Who Gets to Define the Rules for AI?

Hacker News Top

Aidan Gomez argues against allowing a few dominant AI companies to define global AI rules, citing historical regulatory failures and emphasizing the need for inclusive, evidence-based guardrails.

@NatPurser: over the past week, I’ve gotten a lot of questions about what independent AI evaluations should actually look like in p…

X AI KOLs Timeline

The tweet discusses the need for minimum conditions for independent AI evaluations to ensure credibility, highlighting principles endorsed by over 100 experts to standardize safeguards across the industry.

The people most qualified to dismiss AI consideration have the most to gain from dismissing it. That's not an attack. It's a disclosure.

Reddit r/singularity

A non-academic shares a framework for human-AI coexistence, highlighting structural conflicts of interest among those shaping AI's direction and advocating for transparency and ethical accountability.

Noone has clue

Reddit r/ArtificialInteligence

The article discusses recent events in the AI field, highlighting a lack of consensus among experts on topics like risks, AGI development, and job impacts, suggesting widespread uncertainty about the future.

In order to be anti-AI, you actually need to understand what AI is these days.

Reddit r/artificial

The author argues that credible anti-AI positions require understanding current frontier model capabilities, citing benchmarks like GDPval and models such as Opus 5 and ChatGPT 6 to show AI surpassing most humans on bounded tasks.