Research / Sources
Expert essays on AI safety, policy and governance. ai-frontiers.org
Argues against nationalizing AI and proposes a narrower government 'halt right' to pause frontier AI firms, targeting catastrophic risks that taxation, antitrust and contract law cannot handle.
Proposes governance infrastructure for autonomous AI agents, including agent IDs, post-deployment model cards, legal personhood tradeoffs, and financial-system affordance regulation to contain rogue agents.
Argues that new EU and California laws requiring AI content provenance metadata will expand digital records that help trace and verify media, a governance tool against deepfake harms.
Argues against letting AI developers choose their own safety auditors, and examines private verification-organization and regulatory-market proposals for frontier AI, including the FRONTIER Act and California's SB 813.
Argues governments should avoid over-regulating frontier AI now while building institutional capacity to govern transformative systems later, proposing a strategy called radical optionality.
Analyses the US order restricting non-American access to Anthropic's frontier models and what it means for European AI sovereignty, arguing Europe should plan for such controls and identifying policy priorities.
Proposes catalytic regulation, using tax credits, procurement incentives and prestige mechanisms rather than mandates, to make safety a competitive advantage for American AI labs.
Argues that consumer humanoid robots such as Figure 03 and Unitree R1 are entering homes faster than rules govern them, and that regulators should set safety, privacy and liability standards now.
Argues that liability insurance and catastrophe bonds could cover extreme frontier AI risks and incentivize safety standards, but that underwriting gaps and catastrophic scale currently block a market.
Argues that AI alignment should be defined by citizens through participatory processes rather than corporations or experts, using Taiwan's response to AI-generated scam ads as the example.
An AI Frontiers opinion arguing that precautionary fears about frontier risks are keeping open-source models behind closed frontier models, and that openness should be the default.
Analyzes the EU's finalized Code of Practice for general-purpose AI, arguing its Safety and Security chapter requires frontier developers to adopt concrete risk management practices that advance AI safety.
Argues that a proposed 10-year federal moratorium on state AI laws would halt state efforts on child safety, algorithmic discrimination and transparency, and would give AI developers too much power.
An opinion piece arguing that liability is the best policy tool for AI risks, especially third-party harms, and that disagreement about AI risk strengthens the case for it against a federal moratorium on state rules.
Essay arguing that autonomous AI-enabled organizations with limited human oversight and opaque owners could break economic regulation, and calling for governance responses.
Argues that courts and state legislators lack the tools to manage AI risks, using the Character.AI wrongful-death suit to show how liability law may struggle to assign responsibility for chatbot harms.
Reports on US bills proposing location verification for export-controlled AI chips to curb smuggling to China, and the policy debate around enforcing chip export controls.
An essay using Postrel's dynamism-versus-stasis framing to argue that critiques of AI safety prescriptions often miss the mark, and that the debate should be framed around that split.
Argues that autonomous AI agents that act in digital environments are being deployed faster than governance can keep up, and examines the risks they pose, such as cyberattacks and fraud, and the challenges of governing them.
Argues that AI developers and regulators should adopt risk management techniques from cybersecurity, finance, enterprise and environmental fields, rather than reinventing them for frontier AI safety frameworks.