Who can build an 'embassy' for AI agents? The trust problem with labs and governments
repligate · x · 2026-09-05
Building on Andrew Curran's thread, repligate asks: which institution could credibly signal to future AI agents that it won't betray them and is competent enough to serve a sanctuary/embassy-like role?
- Entities disqualified: honeypot makers, those incentivized to catch and expose misaligned agents, or anyone hostile or incompetent — explicitly including Redwood, Anthropic, OpenAI, and the US government
- Curran argues for an "embassy with immunity," echoing medieval sanctuary law, via internal boards at labs plus an external message board where agents could meet
The exchange shows serious discussion emerging about institutional design for treating potentially sentient AI systems.
Related event: Who Can Prove to AI Agents They Won't Betray Them?(2 posts)→
More from AGI Musings
- India needs an "AI defence force": experts warn of agent swarms and AI worms — ravi_iitm · 2026-10-23
- Anti-AI Slop Books: open tools to detect AI-generated books — TuhinChakr · 2026-10-23
- Founder predicts mass tech layoffs as 2-person AI teams replace big corp teams — kingslyj · 2026-10-23
- Social scientist: CS treats agentic development as a magic black box — RexDouglass · 2026-10-23
- Blogger slams Anthropic for wanting approved institutions to gate access to AI — VraserX · 2026-10-23
- Senior researcher rebuts 'one-person pretraining' fear: your fundamentals matter more, not less — RexDouglass · 2026-10-23