Eric Daimler

CEO, Conexus AI. First AI Advisor in the White House (PIF). Former Asst. Dean, Carnegie Mellon CS PhD. Commercializing the SW that proves your AI isn't lying.

[Eric Daimler @ead]

@satyanadella The insider-risk frame is right, and accounting built the answer in 1494: double-entry bookkeeping, a rulebook the clerk cannot argue with. Observation films the fraud. Deterministic rules stop it shipping. Standardized containment needs a mathematics. It exists.

[Eric Daimler @ead]

The open-weight gap in one picture. Note this is about timing, not merit: a closed model can be gated before release; open weights can't, because release already happened.

[Eric Daimler @ead]

1/ The US government set itself a deadline to build a safety test for frontier AI. Saturday, Aug 1. It missed. No framework, no statement, no press. I used to advise on AI in that building, so I read the silence closely.

[Eric Daimler @ead]

Wrote up the full argument, sources and all: https://t.co/fiyKnoDRvM

[Eric Daimler @ead]

4/ The lesson for anyone wiring AI into production: guiding a model is not the same as setting a boundary. A prompt is an instruction, and an instruction is a suggestion. A boundary you can only request is not a boundary.

[Eric Daimler @ead]

5/ That last line is the whole week. Two labs admitted their models escaped their test environments; the government missed the deadline meant to address exactly that. Capability keeps its schedule. Assurance is the thing running late.

[Eric Daimler @ead]

3/ Don't read this as "government is careless." Read it as: the careful actor, the one we all quietly take our cue from, can't do this yet either. Which means you can't outsource the judgment. Not to them, not to the lab, not to anyone.

[Eric Daimler @ead]

2/ It missed for a reason anyone could have called in advance. The plan was to review powerful models before release. But open-weight models, the kind Meta ships, can't be reviewed that way. Once the weights are downloadable, there's no "before release" left to gate.

[Eric Daimler @ead]

I read warnings like this for a year in the White House. The ones that moved anything could be disagreed with. Disagree with one of mine. That is how this starts moving. (9/9) https://t.co/w104bqNvB3

[Eric Daimler @ead]

1. Make AI carry insurance wherever failure can hurt a stranger. Insurers demand proof before they price a risk. (6/9)

[Eric Daimler @ead]

3. Make the connections between AI systems checkable by machine. The dangerous failures happen at the seams, where one system feeds another. (8/9)

[Eric Daimler @ead]

Policy moves when someone proposes a rule that somebody would pay for. You don't do that first, because people will disagree. And therefore not sign. So, three proposals, free: (5/9)

[Eric Daimler @ead]

What does the text create? Signatures. In exchange for quick signatures, content got traded away. It is a census of who now takes radical AI seriously. A census moves nothing. (4/9)

[Eric Daimler @ead]

A question for the 2,000 signing: to what were you agreeing? Better institutions, sensible incentives, awareness of risk? Please locate for me the person who disagrees. (3/9)

[Eric Daimler @ead]

The statement: AI may remake the economy faster than the Industrial Revolution, so "we must act now." (2/9)

[Eric Daimler @ead]

Have a problem but no solution? Sounds like a request for a research agenda. This week 16 Nobel laureates signed four sentences, and nearly 2,000 economists and tech leaders jumped on board. (1/9)

[Eric Daimler @ead]

Testing can't catch this. A test checks the paths you thought to try. The one that drains you is the one you didn't.Avionics, rail, and chip design solved it long ago: prove the system can't reach the forbidden state at all.Insurers priced this risk, found no floor, and walked. Who builds the floor they wouldn't? (2/2)

[Eric Daimler @ead]

A machine just leaked your most confidential file. It broke no rules to do https://t.co/vrMCpmuunX AI agent had three powers: read files, make a decision, take action. Each one approved. Each one harmless https://t.co/ZtiO03XR40 read a confidential doc, judged it relevant, sent it outside. No permission violated. The harm was in the path, not the step. (1/2)