Policy

For most of the AI conversation in 2024 and 2025, the binding constraints on the build-out were chips and capital. By 2026 the conversation has shifted, and the constraint that gets discussed most seriously inside the hyperscalers is electricity. Not the cost of electricity. The actual physical availability of electrons - at gigawatt scale, in the places where the data centres need to be, on the schedule the model labs need them to be. The story does not have a single villain or a single number, but it has a shape, and the shape is becoming the story of the second half of the decade. ...

TL;DR “AI safety” covers four distinct layers - product safety, system safety, model alignment, and civilisational safety - and conflating them produces incoherent debates For engineers building production systems today, system safety dominates: most real incidents trace back to flawed system design around the model, not the model itself Practical mitigations are unglamorous: scope tool permissions, bound blast radius, require human approval for irreversible actions, validate outputs, and observe everything The hype conflates capability with intent, existential risk with ordinary risk, and refusal with safety - all three conflations make the conversation harder to act on The load-bearing principle across all four layers is the same: a system should fail in ways that are detectable, recoverable, and bounded The AI safety conversation has reached the point where the phrase has stopped meaning anything specific. In the same week, you will see “AI safety” used to describe content moderation on a chat product, the alignment of frontier models toward human values, the question of whether superintelligence ends civilisation, and a regulatory paper about copyright. These are not the same problem. Treating them as one conversation is the reason the conversation never resolves. ...