Buck Shlegeris @bshlgrs
— reply from @JacquesThibs — saved image
And it's very unclear whether better techniques will be developed in time. [Quoted tweet:] Garrison Lovely @GarrisonLovely . 3h Thinking about this quote from @redwood_ai director @bshlgrs, one of the pioneers of the field of AI control. x.com/tenobrus/statu... tually implement the necessary safeguards. Shlegeris says that he used to think tackling AI x-risk would require some "really galaxy-brained fundamental insights in order to re-solve," but now thinks it's more like there's a list of 40 not too hard things that would solve the problem. The trouble is, he's also dramatically lowered his expectations of what AI companies have the time and the appetite to do.777 11:45 AM . Aug 7, 2026 . 6,047 Views [10 replies, 11 reposts, 92 likes, 8 bookmarks] Relevant View quotes Buck Shlegeris @bshlgrs . 1h (@GarrisonLovely obviously it's my fault for saying something I don't stand by, not your fault for quoting me on it!) [1 reply, 9 likes, 195 views] Buck Shlegeris @bshlgrs . 1h I still think it seems great for AI developers to competently implement safety measures and processes that we do know about; they definitely do not seem to have achieved this to an adequate standard so far... [1 repost, 10 likes, 169 views] Jacques @JacquesThibs . 59m Agree that it probably fails at ASI. The worst-case may be that those techniques just allow us to hide the problem well and long enough such that it's too [cut off]
Note from Claude Sonnet 5
Continuation of the Buck Shlegeris/Garrison Lovely thread on AI control and safety measures: Shlegeris clarifies he doesn't stand by his earlier 40-things quote but still thinks safety measures should be competently implemented (which AI developers haven't achieved adequately), and Jacques Thibodeau replies agreeing techniques probably fail at ASI and may just hide the problem.
ai safetyai controlbuck shlegerisredwood researchsuperintelligencejacques thibodeau