Hermer calls for global AI rules
1d
Former British Attorney General Richard Hermer called for international regulation of frontier AI, echoing broader concerns that weak safeguards could leave its risks unchecked.
again, we’re not regulating. we’re not doing even the basic due diligence to determine the impact of AI across all areas of public life incl war. the real near term risk to human life is here, not in some runaway agents and misalignment (which are bad too).
October 12, 2026 at 10:17 AM
again, we’re not regulating. we’re not doing even the basic due diligence to determine the impact of AI across all areas of public life incl war. the real near term risk to human life is here, not in some runaway agents and misalignment (which are bad too).
Reposted by Elaine Treharne, Carolyne Larrington
When AI is subject to less regulation than your fridge, something is startlingly wrong | Richard Hermer
When AI is subject to less regulation than your fridge, something is startlingly wrong | Richard Hermer
Let’s be clear: the risk to humanity is unprecedented. Without an urgent public debate and robust use of international law, we will lose control of the future, says Labour life peer Richard Hermer
www.theguardian.com
October 12, 2026 at 6:17 PM
When AI is subject to less regulation than your fridge, something is startlingly wrong | Richard Hermer
by Martin McKee Reposted by Mike Daube
Who can say no? We’ve been thinking a lot about governance of AI, learning lessons from how society has responded to analogous challenges in the past. And we welcome feedback as this is really difficult
arxiv.org/abs/2610.13340
arxiv.org/abs/2610.13340
Who Can Say No? Control, Accountability and the Pace of Frontier AI
In September 2026, the leaders of the largest frontier AI laboratories said in public that the pace of capability improvement is too fast and that none of them can slow down alone, and agents under ev...
arxiv.org
October 12, 2026 at 8:19 AM
Who can say no? We’ve been thinking a lot about governance of AI, learning lessons from how society has responded to analogous challenges in the past. And we welcome feedback as this is really difficult
arxiv.org/abs/2610.13340
arxiv.org/abs/2610.13340
Reposted by Paul M. Schwartz
“AI Governance Workshop” — Join us at the Privacy + Security Forum (Nov. 4–6, 2026) for an in-depth discussion. Register here: bit.ly/3wnJU9h #PrivacyLaw #Cybersecurity #PrivSecForum
October 12, 2026 at 7:03 PM
“AI Governance Workshop” — Join us at the Privacy + Security Forum (Nov. 4–6, 2026) for an in-depth discussion. Register here: bit.ly/3wnJU9h #PrivacyLaw #Cybersecurity #PrivSecForum
Not crazy about the strap line but
When AI is subject to less regulation than your fridge, something is startlingly wrong | Richard Hermer
Let’s be clear: the risk to humanity is unprecedented. Without an urgent public debate and robust use of international law, we will lose control of the future, says Labour life peer Richard Hermer
www.theguardian.com
October 12, 2026 at 8:08 PM
Not crazy about the strap line but
by Amy Bruckman
My response to a pro-ai speech at CSCW: We are experiencing unprecedented societal problems: economic inequality, climate disaster, etc. The trillions being spent on AI are making these problems worse. We the research community need to help hold companies accountable.
October 12, 2026 at 5:21 PM
My response to a pro-ai speech at CSCW: We are experiencing unprecedented societal problems: economic inequality, climate disaster, etc. The trillions being spent on AI are making these problems worse. We the research community need to help hold companies accountable.
The NYT piece below raises the issue of responsibility gaps arising from the use of AI systems. In this paper, I compare such responsibility gaps with those arising in the more widely studied case of corporate entities and discuss possible regulatory responses via liability arrangements. 1/3
October 12, 2026 at 2:13 PM
The NYT piece below raises the issue of responsibility gaps arising from the use of AI systems. In this paper, I compare such responsibility gaps with those arising in the more widely studied case of corporate entities and discuss possible regulatory responses via liability arrangements. 1/3
Reposted by Charles W. Stewart
There’s a certain glib response to warnings of harm from powerful AI that is “they’ll only do that if you tell them to do it”. Which - yes. That’s my concern. Have you seen people?
October 13, 2026 at 6:20 AM
There’s a certain glib response to warnings of harm from powerful AI that is “they’ll only do that if you tell them to do it”. Which - yes. That’s my concern. Have you seen people?
It may sometimes be appropriate to introduce regimes of strict liability for the operation of AI systems. The required insurance costs might then (ideally) incentivise greater AI safety. Of course, all this is very tricky. But there are lessons to be learnt from the case of corporate regulation. 3/3
October 12, 2026 at 2:14 PM
It may sometimes be appropriate to introduce regimes of strict liability for the operation of AI systems. The required insurance costs might then (ideally) incentivise greater AI safety. Of course, all this is very tricky. But there are lessons to be learnt from the case of corporate regulation. 3/3
Reposted by Brigitte Nerlich
"Brad Smith said there needed to be global safety rules in place, including a legal obligation to tell a "victim" if their system is breached by a rogue AI agent as well as deciding when outside evaluators should sign off on an AI product before it is released." www.bbc.com/news/article...
AI is less regulated than milk, Microsoft president says
Brad Smith calls for global rules on AI, and says the UK is in the "best position" to lead the charge.
www.bbc.com
October 12, 2026 at 10:52 AM
"Brad Smith said there needed to be global safety rules in place, including a legal obligation to tell a "victim" if their system is breached by a rogue AI agent as well as deciding when outside evaluators should sign off on an AI product before it is released." www.bbc.com/news/article...
The basic proposal (albeit tricky): regulation should permit the use of autonomous AI in high-stakes settings only if structures are in place to ensure that those systems – or if infeasible, their legal representatives – bear responsibility (backed via proper insurance) for the systems’ actions. 2/3
October 12, 2026 at 2:14 PM
The basic proposal (albeit tricky): regulation should permit the use of autonomous AI in high-stakes settings only if structures are in place to ensure that those systems – or if infeasible, their legal representatives – bear responsibility (backed via proper insurance) for the systems’ actions. 2/3
Reposted by Greg Linden
Threat of AI share crash puts world financial stability at risk, says IMF
Threat of AI share crash puts world financial stability at risk, says IMF
High valuations and debt put sector in danger, while fund also warns on government borrowing and cyber-attacks
The threat of an AI share price crash rippling out across global markets is putting world financial stability at risk, the International Monetary fund has warned.
In its twice-yearly Global Financial Stability Report, the IMF highlighted the sky-high valuations for AI companies along with their increasing debt pile as one reason that risks in the system are “elevated”. Continue reading...
www.theguardian.com
October 13, 2026 at 3:28 AM
Threat of AI share crash puts world financial stability at risk, says IMF