I will use the Shortform to link my posts and Quick Takes.
LongForm post for debate: The EU Is Asking for Feedback on Frontier AI Regulation (Open to Global Experts)โThis Post Breaks Down Whatโs at Stake for AI Safety
The European AI Office is currently finalizing Codes of Practice to regulate how general-purpose AI (GPAI) models be governed under the EU AI Act. They are explicitly asking for global expert input, and feedback is open to anyone, not just EU citizens.
The guidelines in development will shape:
- The definition of "systemic risk"
- How training compute triggers obligations
- When fine-tuners or downstream actors become legally responsible
- What counts as sufficient transparency, evaluation, and risk mitigation
Major labs (OpenAI, Anthropic, Google DeepMind) have already expressed willingness to sign the upcoming Codes of Practice. These codes will likely become the default enforcement standard across the EU and possibly beyond.
So far, AI safety perspectives are seriously underrepresented.
Without strong input from AI Safety researchers and technical AI Governance experts, these rules could lock in shallow compliance norms (mostly centered on copyright or reputational risk) while missing core challenges around interpretability, loss of control, and emergent capabilities.
Iโve written a detailed Longform post breaking down exactly whatโs being proposed, where input is most needed, and how you can engage.
Even if you donโt have policy experience, your technical insight could shape how safety is operationalized at scale.
๐
Feedback is open until 22 May 2025, 12:00 CET
๐ณ๏ธ Submit your response here
Happy to connect with anyone individually for help drafting meaningful feedback.
Quick Take: "Alignment with human intent" explicitly mentioned in European law
The AI alignment community had a major victory in the regulatory landscape, and it went unnoticed by many.
The EU AI Act explicitly mentions "alignment with human intent" as a key focus area in relation to regulation of systemic risks.
As far as I know, this is the first time โalignmentโ has been mentioned by a law, or major regulatory text.
Itโs buried in Recital 110, but itโs there.
And it also makes research on AI Control relevant:
"International approaches have so far identified the need to pay attention to risks from potential intentional misuse or unintended issues of control relating to alignment with human intent".
The EU AI Act also mentions alignment as part of the Technical documentation that AI developers must make publicly available.
This means that alignment is now part of the EUโs regulatory vocabulary.
LongForm post for debate: For Policyโs Sake: Why We Must Distinguish AI Safety from AI Security in Regulatory Governance
๐๐;๐๐
I understand that Safety and Security are two sides of the same coin.
But if we donโt clearly articulate ๐ญ๐ก๐ ๐ข๐ง๐ญ๐๐ง๐ญ ๐๐๐ก๐ข๐ง๐ ๐๐ ๐ฌ๐๐๐๐ญ๐ฒ ๐๐ฏ๐๐ฅ๐ฎ๐๐ญ๐ข๐จ๐ง๐ฌ, we risk misallocating stakeholder responsibilities when defining best practices or regulatory standards.
For instance, a provider might point to adversarial robustness testing as evidence of โsafetyโ compliance: when in fact, the measure only hardens the model against ๐๐ฑ๐ญ๐๐ซ๐ง๐๐ฅ ๐ญ๐ก๐ซ๐๐๐ญ๐ฌ (security), without addressing the internal model behaviors that could still cause harm to users.
๐๐ ๐ซ๐๐ ๐ฎ๐ฅ๐๐ญ๐จ๐ซ๐ฌ ๐๐จ๐ง๐๐ฅ๐๐ญ๐ ๐ญ๐ก๐๐ฌ๐, ๐ก๐ข๐ ๐ก-๐๐๐ฉ๐๐๐ข๐ฅ๐ข๐ญ๐ฒ ๐ฅ๐๐๐ฌ ๐ฆ๐ข๐ ๐ก๐ญ "๐ฆ๐๐๐ญ ๐ญ๐ก๐ ๐ฅ๐๐ญ๐ญ๐๐ซ ๐จ๐ ๐ญ๐ก๐ ๐ฅ๐๐ฐ" ๐ฐ๐ก๐ข๐ฅ๐ ๐๐ฒ๐ฉ๐๐ฌ๐ฌ๐ข๐ง๐ ๐ญ๐ก๐ ๐ฌ๐ฉ๐ข๐ซ๐ข๐ญ ๐จ๐ ๐ฌ๐๐๐๐ญ๐ฒ ๐๐ฅ๐ญ๐จ๐ ๐๐ญ๐ก๐๐ซ.
Opinion Post: Scaling AI Regulation: Realistically, what Can (and Canโt) Be Regulated?
- Should we even expect regulation to be useful for AI safety?
- Is there a version of AI regulation that wouldnโt be performative?
- How do you see the "Brussels effect" playing out for AI Safety?
- Are regulatory sandboxes a step in the right direction?
Thanks for posting and bringing attention to this! I have forwarded to my friend who works in AI safety.