The panel has been saying that safety measures built into AI models are not enough on their own. Love cuts in with this, and a couple of turns later he explains it: he has been refused something twice, asked nicely a third time, and the model did it. That, he says, is not a guardrail.
…about AI. Like those things get in the way of the serious discussions that we need to have, that real professionals need to have, and the public needs to have to deal with a big transformation that's happening in our world. That's the disappointing thing for me. That's what makes me crazy.
…on the model makers' guardrails. That way lies ruin. And so I think it's really important on that side. But again, these are all the conversations about basics and about the reality of where we're at that we are losing because Anderson Cooper tells us the world's going to end by 2030. Well, yeah.
I just sorry, go back to this. Guardrails don't exist. They're overlays. As
someone who is in the business of like auditing and actually building out the standards for like actually like raiding through the like the AI governance, the UAI Act ISO 40 2001, I will be very critical about it in terms of the AI certifications and all these like awesome old gold rush associated…
And I don't want to say things that aren't technically correct. When I say guardrails don't exist, I just, I can't be the only person who's been barred from doing something, barred a second time from doing something, and then asked the AI the third time nicely, and it let me do it. That's not a…
Yeah. And I think it's a great point, too, around the auditing and the compliance regime that has to have time to mature. And that's just unfortunately the nature. If we think back to, you know, the earlier days of cybersecurity compliance and auditing, and not even just the early days, the medium…