7 captures, most recent first.
Sharmake Farah @SharmakeFarah14 · 56m
This is related to a general problem with trying to pick governance over tech solutions: If you somehow passed a law that was based on a premise that was wrong, it's usually impossible to reverse, and there's very little iteratibility in politics.
[quoted tweet:]
Skillful Dreams ✔️ @skillfuldreams · 14h
Replying to @nickcammarata
"No idea how to do it or measure it" is a bigger problem than this framing suggests. You may intend to slow things by only a few months, but I think you're underestimating the danger of …
Note from Claude Sonnet 5
Tweet from Sharmake Farah arguing that AI governance solutions are risky because laws based on wrong premises are hard to reverse, unlike technical/iterative solutions; quotes a reply from Skillful Dreams to Nick Cammarata about AI slowdown risk.
ai governanceai safetytwitterpolicy
CuddlySalmon reposted
prinz ✔️ @deredleritt3r · 3h
"I am surprised that the same people who loudly decried the USG for designating Anthropic a supply chain risk, suddenly pulling access to Fable 5, and establishing an opaque "voluntary" frontier model approval regime, are now petitioning the USG to "support an international effort" to deliberately pace AI development.
The domestic and international regimes you are going to get in response to such a proposal will work very similarly to the USG's actions over the past few months (or worse). You want to be ruled by a wise technocrat; you will instead have handed control over your technology to a rag-tag bunch of political animals pursuing goals *very* different from yours and having little to do with the technical considerations of whether AI development should be slowed at any point in time.
You will receive a designation letter (just as Anthropic did after the USG suddenly deemed Fable to be unsafe a few weeks ago). The designation will make no sense to you, since you will earnestly believe that your safeguards work! But your only recourse will be to lobby and cross your fingers (much more difficult to do on an international level BTW)."
Note from Claude Sonnet 5
Long text-only political/policy commentary tweet arguing against international AI-pause regimes, referencing an apparent real-world incident where the US government designated Anthropic a "supply chain risk" and pulled access to a model called "Fable 5."
ai-governanceanthropicfablepolicyregulation
@raelifin (Max Harms) — 11m
Why settle for an A-tier plan when you could go for an S-tier plan? smh
[Image: two-tier meme graphic]
S (red block) — PLAN S: "Shut it all down"
A (orange block) — PLAN A: "Verified Slowdown"
Note from Claude Sonnet 5
A meme-format tweet ranking AI policy proposals tier-list style, joking that "Shut it all down" (associated with MIRI/Eliezer Yudkowsky-style positions) outranks "Verified Slowdown" as a governance approach.
ai safetyai governancetwitterpolicymeme
↻ Jeff Sebo reposted
Tyler John @tyler_m_john
I've made some great hires on my AI governance team and we're continuing to pick up the pace. Lots to do in the next 12 months. Our next hire will be a senior researcher-operator who wants to aggressively build out in AI politics and policy. Send me EOIs and referrals!
5:16 AM · Jun 6, 2026 · 1,281 Views
Note from Claude Sonnet 5
Text-only tweet, a job/hiring announcement for an AI governance team, reposted into Nathan's feed by Jeff Sebo.
ai governancehiringpolicytwitter
```
Elizabeth Barnes @BethMayBarnes Sometimes people outside the field say things like "The AI situation can't be that bad, there must be experts who are on top of it". As "an expert", I would like to be clear that we are
*not... [truncated] [4 reposts, 47 likes, 1.7K views] Ryan Greenbl... @RyanPGreenbl... · 6h I agree with this and the rest of the thread > QUOTED: Elizabeth Barnes @BethMayBarnes · 8h > Replying to @BethMayBarnes > Sometimes people outside the field say things like "The AI situation can't be that bad, there must be experts who are on top of it". As "an expert", I would like to be clear that we are *not... [truncated]
```
Note from Claude Sonnet 5
A widely-viewed thread from METR's Elizabeth Barnes bluntly stating that AI safety experts are not "on top of" the risks — likely extinction-level capable systems within a few years, chaotic lab practices, and chronic under-resourcing of independent safety orgs like METR relative to development pace. Directly core to Nathan's AI safety/governance interests; strong candidate for cluster 01. Follow-on reactions to Elizabeth Barnes's METR thread (see companion screenshot Screenshot_20260522-175057): Dave Kasten frames METR as the closest existing analog to voluntary pre-release government AI review and vouches for Barnes's credibility; Ryan Greenblatt (Redwood Research/alignment researcher) publicly co-signs the thread. Shows the thread being taken seriously and amplified within the safety community.
twitterelizabeth barnesmetrai safetyx-riskgovernancetimelineslab practicesryan greenblattdave kastenai governancepolicy
Kyle Corbitt (verified) @corbtt · 2h
So here's the thing about relying on technical safeguards to ensure the government uses AI for good:
[xkcd-style two-panel comic. Panel 1 "OPENAI'S IMAGINATION:" — two stick figures, one holding a laptop saying "Blast! Our evil plan is foiled!" with the other saying "No good! We can't get past OpenAI's content blocking!" captioned "We'll use our autonomous drone swarm to kill all the terrorists." Panel 2 "WHAT WOULD ACTUALLY HAPPEN:" — one stick figure holding a wrench to another's laptop, saying "Got it," captioned "Cancel OpenAI's IPO until they turn off the content blockers."]
Note from Claude Sonnet 5
A comic critiquing the idea that technical content-moderation safeguards can meaningfully constrain government/military misuse of AI, arguing that economic/political leverage (e.g. threatening an IPO) would simply override such safeguards. Relevant to AI governance and the limits of technical alignment/safety measures as a check on state power.
twitterai governanceopenaidrone swarmtechnical safeguardscomicpolicy
Stefan Schubert @StefanFSchubert
Be alert to uses of "by default" or "business-as-usual" in the context of projections of future trends.
While they literally mean "in the absence of new policy", they often carry the association that they're likely (cf "usual").
But in fact, they're often highly unlikely.
->
8:20 PM · Jul 2, 2025 · 1,247 Views · Twitter Web App
View post engagements
2 1 13 3 [share icon]
Stefan Schubert @StefanFSchubert · Jul 2
It's often very unlikely that we'll fail to introduce new policies.
But the phrases "by default" and "business-as-usual" - and the way people use them - often hide that.
That contributes to the flawed perception that we'll sleepwalk into disaster.
1 853
Note from Claude Sonnet 5
Screenshot of a two-tweet thread by Stefan Schubert (@StefanFSchubert) about the rhetorical slipperiness of the phrases 'by default' and 'business-as-usual' in trend forecasting.
forecastingpolicyrhetorictwitter
