Human oversight is the phrase everyone uses, and almost nobody defines what it requires. Checkpoint-Based Governance sets four conditions that separate a human who reviewed from a human who decided, and it puts that difference in the record. Read what a checkpoint has to do to count.
Constitutional AI
The Great AI Language Collapse: Why Marketing Is Killing Accountability
Most AI titles and terms being used right now are dead wrong. That should scare us more than the technology itself. What passes for authority today is often confidence without structure. A dangerous flattening is happening in plain sight. Operational requirements turn into marketing slogans, and accountability quietly disappears with the language. Clarity of language […]
The Adolescence of Governance
The Quality Distinction Missing from AI Safety Original Letter (Click to Read) To: Dario Amodei, Chief Executive Officer, Anthropic, Your essay, The Adolescence of Technology, is one of the most serious and intellectually honest examinations of advanced AI risk produced by a frontier lab leader. It avoids religious doom narratives, rejects inevitability claims, and confronts […]
A CONSTITUTION IS NOT GOVERNANCE
Anthropic’s constitution for Claude is a serious Ethical AI document, but it is not AI Governance. This white paper by Basil C. Puglisi separates Ethical AI, Responsible AI, and AI Governance and shows where the constitution stops short of human oversight. It closes with a Minimum Viable Governance Annex template that organizations can adopt.