Chilson flips the critique: AI safety community's resistance may cost it credibility
neil_chilson · x · 2026-10-18
Neil Chilson continues his exchange with Dean Ball over AI policy credibility, pointing out an oddly timed irony:
- Just as Ball criticizes the libertarian tech policy movement as unyielding and myopic, the AI safety community reacted apoplectically to draft legislation associated with Anthropic — wouldn't such intransigence hurt their own credibility?
- He says this group largely remains opposed to the Senate leadership proposal with the best pathway to passage, and their BATNA is "an increasing web of state legislation"
- Chilson sees that as regulation for regulation's sake, calling 1980s talking points an appropriate response
The post shifts the debate's focus onto the AI safety camp's legislative strategy, exposing the federal-vs-state regulatory rift.
Related event: Policy scholars clash over federal AI preemption and credibility(2 posts)→
More from AGI Musings
- Miles Brundage: No AI company is secure against state attackers — Miles_Brundage · 2026-10-18
- How user-built AI apps could replace the ad economy with a token economy — xiaosun86 · 2026-10-18
- Fields Medalist Timothy Gowers: one-shotting a proof with ChatGPT means we don't understand it — haider1 · 2026-10-18
- When users write their own apps, the ad economy gives way to token-based economics — xiaosun86 · 2026-10-18
- Peter Drucker's 1963 quote on efficiency resurfaces as a sharp critique of AI in 2026 — mattbeane · 2026-10-18
- Aligning AI: hard engineering problem or existential threat? A three-hypothesis breakdown — sayashk · 2026-10-18