The current industry approach to AI safety, which focuses on censoring a model's "latent space," is flawed and ineffective. True safety work should reorient around preventing real-world, "meatspace" harm (e.g., data breaches). Security vulnerabilities should be fixed at the system level, not by trying to "lobotomize" the model itself.

The primary danger in AI safety is not a lack of theoretical solutions but the tendency for developers to implement defenses on a "just-in-time" basis. This leads to cutting corners and implementation errors, analogous to how strong cryptography is often defeated by sloppy code, not broken algorithms.

AI leaders aren't ignoring risks because they're malicious, but because they are trapped in a high-stakes competitive race. This "code red" environment incentivizes patching safety issues case-by-case rather than fundamentally re-architecting AI systems to be safe by construction.

Many AI safety guardrails function like the TSA at an airport: they create the appearance of security for enterprise clients and PR but don't stop determined attackers. Seasoned adversaries can easily switch to a different model, rendering the guardrails a "futile battle" that has little to do with real-world safety.

Technical research is vital for governance because it provides concrete artifacts for policymakers. Demonstrations and evaluations showing dangerous AI behaviors make abstract risks tangible, giving policymakers a clear target for regulation, aligning with advice from figures like Jake Sullivan.

AI companies engage in "safety revisionism," shifting the definition from preventing tangible harm to abstract concepts like "alignment" or future "existential risks." This tactic allows their inherently inaccurate models to bypass the traditional, rigorous safety standards required for defense and other critical systems.

Many organizations excel at building accurate AI models but fail to deploy them successfully. The real bottlenecks are fragile systems, poor data governance, and outdated security, not the model's predictive power. This "deployment gap" is a critical, often overlooked challenge in enterprise AI.

For any given failure mode, there is a point where further technical research stops being the primary solution. Risks become dominated by institutional or human factors, such as a company's deliberate choice not to prioritize safety. At this stage, policy and governance become more critical than algorithms.

When a highly autonomous AI fails, the root cause is often not the technology itself, but the organization's lack of a pre-defined governance framework. High AI independence ruthlessly exposes any ambiguity in responsibility, liability, and oversight that was already present within the company.