Instead of trying to anticipate every potential harm, AI regulation should mandate open, internationally consistent audit trails, similar to financial transaction logs. This shifts the focus from pre-approval to post-hoc accountability, allowing regulators and the public to address harms as they emerge.

The emphasis on long-term, unprovable risks like AI superintelligence is a strategic diversion. It shifts regulatory and safety efforts away from addressing tangible, immediate problems like model inaccuracy and security vulnerabilities, effectively resulting in a lack of meaningful oversight today.

When addressing AI's 'black box' problem, lawmaker Alex Boris suggests regulators should bypass the philosophical debate over a model's 'intent.' The focus should be on its observable impact. By setting up tests in controlled environments—like telling an AI it will be shut down—you can discover and mitigate dangerous emergent behaviors before release.

Instead of trying to legally define and ban 'superintelligence,' a more practical approach is to prohibit specific, catastrophic outcomes like overthrowing the government. This shifts the burden of proof to AI developers, forcing them to demonstrate their systems cannot cause these predefined harms, sidestepping definitional debates.

The difficulty of dismantling factory farming demonstrates the power of path dependence. By establishing AI welfare assessments and policies *before* sentience is widely believed to exist, we can prevent society and the economy from becoming reliant on exploitative systems, avoiding a protracted and costly future effort to correct course.

In the AI era, the pace of change is so fast that by the time academic studies on "what works" are published, the underlying technology is already outdated. Leaders must therefore rely on conviction and rapid experimentation rather than waiting for validated evidence to act.

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.

Other scientific fields operate under a "precautionary principle," avoiding experiments with even a small chance of catastrophic outcomes (e.g., creating dangerous new lifeforms). The AI industry, however, proceeds with what Bengio calls "crazy risks," ignoring this fundamental safety doctrine.

New and controversial fields face a difficult trade-off. Excessive caution means delaying action and allowing existing harms to continue. However, reckless action risks implementing counterproductive policies that become entrenched and hard to reverse, damaging the field's credibility. The key is finding a middle path of deliberate, monitored action.