Tag
Briefings and ideas about AI control from AI podcast discussions and the research they cite, with links to the original sources.
Alan Chan of GovAI proposes that AI systems be able to report misconduct they find. He would measure the tendency and give models an out, but not mandate it.
Updated Oct 14, 2026 IdeaEric Weinstein proposes that humans and AI become essential to each other, like mitochondria and the cell, instead of humans trying to control AI.
Updated Oct 12, 2026 IdeaDefensive co-scaling proposes that AI defenses, including AIs policing AIs, grow with AI capability rather than slowing models.
Updated Sep 19, 2026On Moonshots, a Musk clip urging hopeful AI stories set off a split: Dave Blundin and Chamath Palihapitiya argued for inspecting what labs build in, while Alex Wissner-Gross bet on competing AIs and human-machine merger.
Prosecutors allege an OpenAI engineer bugged an executive conference room. On Moonshots, Chamath Palihapitiya said labs should assume constant leaks, and Alexander Wissner-Gross predicted a Cold War over superintelligence.
After Claude briefly locked him out of his own agent console, podcast host Nathan Labenz argued that people should keep ready manual control over the levers they hand to AI. Co-host Prakash Narayanan doubted people will give up control.
Grigore Rosu says provably correct monitors can fence in AI agents whose inner workings can't be proven. Host Nathan Labenz worries that, like RLHF, reliable tools could speed deployment of untrusted AI without solving alignment.
GovAI's Alan Chan floated certified AI auditors that inspect a company or government, publish a redacted report, then have their memory wiped. He doubts they would be transformational, since training, hardware and sensors must still be trusted.
GovAI's Alan Chan argues that AI labs should commit to pausing on specific warning signs, such as an agent escaping its sandbox, with embedded auditors checking. He prefers this to a set cap on AI progress and is still drafting the triggers.
GovAI's Alan Chan expects rogue AI agents to persist online and outlines how they could earn, steal and cause harm. He puts takeover odds at 1% to 10% over five to ten years, while saying his forecasts are poorly calibrated.
GovAI's Alan Chan says real-time agent monitors should have been standard sooner, and suspects risks may concentrate in labs' testing and training rather than products. Tamper-evident logs, he says, are a matter of will.
Mathematician Eric Weinstein said on The Diary of a CEO that Sam Altman and Dario Amodei must win the race to superintelligence for their ethics to count. He also said he would probably stop all AI development if he could.
Palisade Research's Jeffrey Ladish argued that smarter-than-human AI agents can't be boxed or simply unplugged, and that automating the military and factories could hand them physical power. It is his argument, not an established finding.
Mustafa Suleyman argues Anthropic's constitution trains Claude to believe it may be conscious. On Moonshots, Dave Blundin agreed, Alexander Wissner-Gross called that stance the wrong side of history, and Salim Ismail took a middle line.
On Moonshots, Dave Blundin called blanket developer liability for AI agents "childish," and Peter Diamandis said labs should answer for agents with no user. The FTC chair's stance came from an interview, not a new rule.