Around the world, AI systems are being deployed at scale with remarkably little institutional oversight. There is no AI safety board. The US Federal Trade Commission has jurisdiction over unfair practices but limited authority over algorithmic design. The National Institute of Standards and Technology publishes guidance that most companies ignore. The EU AI Act is partially in force but addresses only a sliver of the deployment surface.

This encyclical doesn't break new ground so much as ratify a governance effort that's already underway, led not by states or international bodies but by shareholders. When governments fail to meaningfully regulate, and corporations cannot be trusted to do what is beneficial beyond their own bottom line, people in society still have the power to set us on the right path

The government sought to evaluate models up to 90 days prior to release, while AI labs pushed for a much shorter timeline of only 14 days.

Trump has taken a hands-off approach to regulating AI since retaking office, but members of his administration got spooked and began recommending safety testing after Anthropic flagged cybersecurity risks with its latest model, Mythos.

In practical terms, in the age of AI and robotics, ensuring that the economy favors human dignity means adopting certain criteria for firm action. First, transparency and accountability: when data and algorithms influence credit distribution, personnel selection or access to services and opportunities, it is necessary that decisions be understandable, contestable and subject to oversight, so that individuals are not reduced to mere profiles. Second, inclusion and access: the benefits of innovation must be paired with investments in skills, infrastructure and essential services to ensure that technology does not widen the gap between those who have and those who have not. Finally, measures to ensure equity: taxation, social protection and industrial policies must correct the imbalances created by the concentration of wealth and power. Indeed, these criteria do not constitute a curb on innovation; instead they make it civilized and humane.

The bill would shield frontier AI developers from liability for 'critical harms' caused by their frontier models as long as they did not intentionally or recklessly cause such an incident.

Sanders and Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) introduced a bill to ban data center construction "until Congress passes comprehensive AI legislation."

We provide a framework for categorizing the ways in which conflicting incentives might lead LLMs to change the way they interact with users, inspired by literature from linguistics and advertising regulation.

The government has so far favoured a pro-innovation, sector-led approach, prioritising voluntary principles over hard regulation.

The government has so far favoured a pro-innovation, sector-led approach, prioritising voluntary principles over hard regulation.

If you told me you were building a next generation nuclear power plant, but there was no way to get accurate readings on whether the reactor core was going to blow up, I’d say you shouldn’t build it. Is A.I. like that power plant? I’m not sure.

Who is responsible for the actions of AI? How should liability be determined for their mistakes? Can a legal system designed by humans keep pace with activities produced by an AI capable of outthinking and potentially outmaneuvering them?