AI safety debate: why voluntary incident disclosures still deserve praise
RyanGreenblatt · x · 2026-07-22
Ryan Greenblatt agrees with a critique of the current AI incident-disclosure dynamic: because robust mandatory reporting is still missing, companies can choose whether to disclose incidents, so external observers should treat those disclosures as imperfect but still worth incentivizing.
The quoted thread argues that weakened state-law reporting rules cover only a narrow set of severe incidents, leaving the ecosystem dependent on voluntary disclosure. In that environment, praising companies for transparency is not the same as excusing the underlying carelessness; it is a pragmatic way to push better disclosure norms until mandatory reporting exists.
More from Safety
- AI Hypocrisy: Trillion-Dollar Copyright Infringement vs. Banned API Log Saving — proales · 2026-07-23
- Scary Class of Bug Found in GitHub, Detailed Report Praised — _xjdr · 2026-07-23
- A poster argues cyber-capable agents will make software more secure, not less — mariofilhoml · 2026-07-23
- Bittensor’s SN26 pitches open AI model stress-testing after the OpenAI incident — bittingthembits · 2026-07-23
- A cartoon turns model training, scraping and cloning into an AI war zone — rdesh26 · 2026-07-23
- Cisco says two small open security models beat GPT-5.5 on vulnerability detection cost — The Decoder · 2026-07-23