@Miles_Brundage: I understand where people are coming from when saying “existing laws already say you can’t do reckless AI stuff!” And y…
Summary
Miles Brundage criticizes the effectiveness of existing laws in preventing reckless AI actions, noting that safety and security staff in companies feel unsupported by current legal frameworks.
View Cached Full Text
Cached at: 09/14/26, 11:37 PM
I understand where people are coming from when saying “existing laws already say you can’t do reckless AI stuff!”
And yet reckless AI stuff occurs. Should be a sign re: faulty logic!
Suffice it to say safety/security staff at companies do not feel like the law has their back RN
Similar Articles
@linamkhan: Law enforcers already have authority to charge companies and their CEOs for creating and releasing dangerous, unvetted,…
The article discusses how existing laws already allow enforcement against companies for creating dangerous AI products, emphasizing the importance of upholding current regulations while considering new legal frameworks to ensure AI safety and accountability.
@Miles_Brundage: - robust whistleblower protections (NDAs discourage people from sharing not-yet-illegal-but-dangerous things with polic…
The article advocates for robust whistleblower protections to address AI risks and emphasizes serious investment in AI alignment and security against AI-enabled state attackers.
@Miles_Brundage: Hello, based police
Jamie Cox, cofounder of a major compute company, publicly expresses support for AI regulation, prioritizing it over potential slower progress for his own company.
@Miles_Brundage: Among other things, we need: - auditing to actually be required at the leading companies, with minimum qualification, i…
Miles_Brundage advocates for mandatory auditing and enforceable safety standards for leading AI companies to improve oversight and security.
@Miles_Brundage: Wow!
Miles Brundage expresses excitement about a linked article, likely related to AI safety or policy.