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
- 6TB of Fable data sold with leaked SSH keys, cloud creds tied to Xiaomi, Huawei, NIO — teortaxesTex · 2026-09-11
- Novosad backs Hassabis' AI safety institution-building over kneecapping US labs — paulnovosad · 2026-09-11
- Economist argues safe AGI comes from engineers inside big labs, not regulation — paulnovosad · 2026-09-11
- LLM-driven attacks mostly follow Pentesting 101: traditional defenses still work — AccBalanced · 2026-09-11
- Op-ed: the ">10% extinction" narrative is liability evasion — AI is just software, and the vendor is the defendant — gerardsans · 2026-09-11
- GreyNoise reveals campaign run by hundreds of AI agents against PaperCut NG/MF — AccBalanced · 2026-09-11